Gurdial Singh vs State of Punjab

K.S. Narang, F.C.

This is a revision petition under Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act read with section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, against the order dated 19.5.1981 of the Commissioner Patiala, in the surplus area case of Gurdial Singh son of Bhagat Singh of village Nurpur, Tehsil Ludhiana.

Gurdial Singh, landowner filed declaration in form A under the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 within the prescribed period alongwith details of his holdings as existed on 24.1.1971, in the village Nurpur Bet and Pandari. The surplus area was first determined by the Collector Agrarian vide his order dated 16.2.1976. On appeal, the Commissioner Patiala by his order dated 29.5.1979 remanded the case to the Collector Agrarian Ludhiana after considering the issues of the valuation, total members of the family and the disposition of the land by way of transfer etc. by his order dated 17.1.1980 observed that the landowner had no surplus area with him. His conclusion is reproduced below :

"As has been discussed above total holding of the applicant on the appointed day stood at 12.29 hectores of Ist quality, of this he sold 1.87 hectores. Besides he is entitled to have a benefit of 4.20 hecatres of Ist quality as additional benefit for his three additional members of his family. Thus excluding sold land, the remaining land with him remains to be 10.42 hectores. Allowing him benefit of 4.20 hectores the remaining land comes to 6.22 hecatres. This is clear that there is no surplus land with the applicant. This case is therefore filed."

In making these observations, the Collector Agrarian took the view that the 6th child (daughter) born on 16.8.1971 was also entitled to additional area in accordance with the ruling of the Financial Commissioner Taxation (Shri. N. Khosla, I.A.S.) reported in 1977 P.L.J. 126 in which it was held that a child born between 24.1.1971 and 2.4.1973 was entitled to additional area.

The successor Collector Agrarian took notice that the above order dated 17.1.1980 of his predecessor was not in accordance with the law laid down by Punjab and Haryana Court in their judgment dated 20th April, 1979 reported in 1979 P.L.J. 310. He, therefore, made a reference to the Commissioner, Patiala Division, seeking permission to review the order of his predecessor dated 19.5.1981, who allowed the review observing as under :

"I have considered the reference today in presence of respondent in person. This impugned order is dated 17.1.1980 when the law relied upon by the learned Collector that is 1977 P.L.J. 126 already stood superseded by the ruling 1979 P.L.J. 310 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein it was laid down that determination of surplus area is wholly correlated to the appointment day that is 24th January, 1971. In the light of this judgment which was delivered in April, 1979, the caselaw relied upon by the learned counsel was no longer good law. This order of the Collector dated 17.1.1980 therefore is required to be reviewed. The review is allowed."

Against the above order the petitioner has filed this revision petition. I have heard the counsel for the parties. Shri Arora has contended that the additional child was entitled to the benefit of the land under this Act, that the change in law on account of pronouncement of the High Court is not a good ground for review, and that the order passed by the Commissioner allowing the review is illegal.

In this case, the main point for determination is whether a child born after 24.1.1971, the appointed day of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 is entitled to the benefit of the additional land. As held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court (D.B.) in 1979 P.L.J. 310, the crucial date for the determination of the surplus area is the appointed day of 24th January, 1971, and not the date when the Act came into force. The appointed day as defined in Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, is 24th January, 1971, even though the Act came into force on 2nd April, 1973. Keeping in view the High Court judgment the view of my learned predecessor that a son born before 2nd April, 1973 (commencement of the Act) but after 24th January, 1971 (appointed day) should be taken into account for working out the entitlement of the additional area under the Act, 1972 ibid, does not hold good. If the counsel for the parties and the Collector Agrarian Ludhiana were not keeping abreast with the latest law laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, it is itself a good ground to set aside the order dated 17.1.1980 of the Collector Agrarian. However, the learned Commissioner was fully competent to take cognizance of the matter in the reference made by the successor Collector Agrarian to review an illegal order under the provision contained under section 82 of the Punjab Tenancy Act.

For the reasons given above, I see no force in the revision petition and uphold the order of the Commissioner dated 19.5.1981 allowing the review of the order dated 17.1.1980 of the Collector Agrarian. The Collector Agrarian Ludhiana is directed to redecide the case afresh, according to law, within 3 months after hearing the petitionerlandowner Announced.