Gopal and others vs State and others

A.S. Pooni, F.C.

The facts of this case briefly are that land measuring 8 standard acres 2 units was declared surplus with Durga Dass s/o Hari Ram of Village Waryam Khera, Tehsil Fazilka vide order dated 16.5.1964 of Collector Agrarian Fazilka. The appeal of the landowner against this order was dismissed by the Commissioner, Jallandhar Division on 22.2.1965 and a revision petition filed before the Financial Commissioner was rejected on 14.7.1972. After consolidation operations in the village, proceedings under Section 24A(2) were initiated and these were finalised on 15.1.1976. The landowner filed an appeal against this order which was accepted by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division on 23.8.1976. On remand of the case the landowner did not appear and accordingly the Collector Agrarian Abohar declared 16 standard acres 23/4 units as surplus with the landowner vide ex parte order dated 19.9.1977. The landowner against filed an appeal and the case was remanded on 3.9.1979. The landowner again absented himself and the Collector vide order dated 15.10.1979 reiterated his previous decision. The present petitioners and respondent No. 5 filed an appeal against this order claiming to be tenants on land measuring 110 Kanals 4 Marlas. It was urged that no notice has been given to them. The appeal of respondent No. 5 only was accepted by the Commissioner vide his impugned order dated 11.5.1987. The others have come up in revision.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and it has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that the record shows that they were tenants on land measuring 110 kanals 4 marlas and were as such entitled to tenants permissible area. It is urged that no notice was given to them in the proceedings under Section 24A(2) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, which even otherwise are unsustainable as these were finalised after coming into force of the Punjab Land Reforms Act. It is further contended that the landowner has died, and in accordance with the ruling 1980 PLJ 354 his holding has to be reassessed in the hands of his heirs. Sh. O.K. Puri, Senior State Counsel has not been able to deny the correctness of the legal position stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has, however, pointed out that proceedings for reassessing the holding of the landowner under the Punjab Land Reforms Act are pending.

I have considered the pleas of the parties and have also gone through the record. The record reveals that when the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 came into force, the area declared surplus with the landowner on 16.5.1964 had not been utilised, although the appeal and revision of the landowner against the order dated 16.5.1964 stood dismissed. It is clear beyond doubt that the area declared surplus with the landowner was separated on 15.1.1976 only. In other words the landowner as on 15.1.1976 had not been divested of the possession of the area declared surplus with him under the Punjab Security of Land Tenuares Act. As per the ratio of the judgment in Ranjit Ram''s case, 1981 PLJ 259, this area was required to be reassessed for determining his permissible limit under the Punjab Land Reforms Act. It also means, therefore, that the proceedings under Section 24A(2) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act after coming into force of the Punjab Land Reforms Act were not sustainable, for the simple reason that there was no area available for being vested in the state under Section 8 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act. It has further come on record that the landowner has since died. In accordance with the Full Bench decision 1980 PLJ 354, therefore, the protection of subsection (5) of Section 11 is fully available to the heirs of the landowners, holding of each of whom has to be assessed with a view to determine as to whether any one has a holding over and above the permissible limit. The claims of the petitioners would also be reassessed in accordance with the provisions of the new Act. For these reasons, the revision petition is accepted and the case remanded to the Special Collector, Abohar for a fresh decision. He is directed to link up this case with the proceedings already reported to be pending under the Punjab Land Reforms Act. The parties will appear before him on 29.9.1993.

Announced.