Gurbachan Singh vs Harbans Singh and anr.

C.D. Cheema, F.C.

This revision petition filed under Section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 is against the order dated 27.10.1987 of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order of Collector (Agrarian), Garhshankar dated 30th January, 1980.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Collector Agrarian declared an area to the extent of 2.0708 Hect. as surplus on 24.3.1978 in the hands of Harbans Singh, respondent No. 1. Against this order Harbans Singh preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Jalandhar who accepted the same and remanded the case to the Collector Agrarian, Garhshankar for fresh decision on the basis of calculation to be made on the criteria set forth by him in his remand order. The landowner pleaded before the Collector Agrarian, Garhshankar that he had sold approximately 19 acres of land in village Sadhowal in the year 197374 and later on purchased to the tune of 9.5 acres of land in year 1974. It was argued before the Collector that if the land purchased by him was to be included for determining the surplus area, then the land sold by him should not included. His second plea was that his son Manmohan Singh, who had attained the citizenship of Australia was eligible for a separate unit. If he was not to be considered eligible then his other son Harpreet be given a separate unit. The Collector Agrarian, Garhshankar considered the arguments and held vide his order dated 30.1.1980 that there was no surplus area with the landowner but it would not mitigate the offence committed by him under section 23 of the Land Reforms Act about the concealment made by him in his statement and came to the notice of the Collector on the complaints of the Land Reforms Committee. Against this order the present petitioner filed and appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division who dismissed it vide order dated 27.10.1987, which order has now been impugned before this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a public purpose nature litigation and the petitioner is a complainant. The landowner concealed the area but has not been penalised. Similarly benefit of adult son has been given for the son who was minor on the appointed date.

The learned Senior State Counsel submitted that the Collector Agrarian committed a patent error in this case. The eldest son of the landowner left India and adopted citizenship of Australia. The 2nd son attained majority in the year 1979. Refering to Article 5 of the Constitution of India the learned counsel submitted that after denouncing Indian citizenship laws of this country were not applicable to him. The grandson of the big landowner had been given benefit of 34 kanals. The land owned by the family of the big landowner is to be seen as on 24.1.1971 and any transfer made thereafter is to be ignored. Similarly the landowner filed wrong affidavit with regard to his holding and necessary cut of 2 hectares should have been imposed as envisaged in the Act.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. The Collector Land Reforms, Garhshankar in his order dated 14th March, 1978 had found the total holding of the landowner to be 385 Kanals 11 Marlas. When converted into first quality land it came to 16.0708 hectares. The landowner had two tubewells of 71/2 HP each in village Sadhowal and the third tubewell of 71/2 HP in Garhshankar. The calculation of the land owned by the landowner should be rechecked by the Collector Agrarian, Garhshankar as there is variation in the calculation made by the Naib Tehsildar, Collector and the Addl. Commissioner. The eldest son of the landowner Manmohan Singh was major on the appointed date. But he was granted citizenship of Australia on 8.6.1973. Certificate is on the file of the Collector on the date of decision of the case by the Collector (Agrarian). In the year 1976, Manmohan Singh was not a citizen of India and as such, no benefit of additional unit being son of the landowner be given to him. The landowner had sold approximately 19 acres of land in village Sadhowal in the year 197374. As the sale was made after appointed date so this is to be ignored and the land will be counted in the hands of the big landowner. Similarly and land subsequently acquired by the landowner will also be counted towards his total holdings. The Collector (Agrarian) has given benefit of adult son to Harpreet Singh, who attained majority in the year 1979. This is wrong as the benefit of adult son is to be counted as on 24.1.1971 and not afterwards. As mentioned in the order of the Collector (Agrarian), Garhshankar, dated 30.1.1980 the landowner had concealed material facts in his affidavit dated 19.2.1976 filed in connection with the proceedings before the Collector (Agrarian) under the Land Reforms Act. This may be looked into and all the land standing in the names of his sons should be counted and appropriate action be taken under Section 23 of the land reforms Act, 1972. This is a fit case to impose a cut of 2 hectares as envisaged in the Act.

With the above observations the revision petition is accepted. Orders of Collector (Agrarian), Garhshankar dated 30.1.1980 and that of Commissioner, Jalandhar dated 27.10.1987 are set aside and the case is remanded to the Collector (Agrarian), Garhshankar, who will decide the matter afresh, keeping in view the above observations and after giving due opportunity to the landowner of being heard.

Announced.