Gurmej Singh vs State of Punjab

K.S. Narang, F.C.

This is revision petition under section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'') against the order dated 19th December, 1979 of the Commissioner, Jullundur Division relating to surplus area case of Gurmej Singh (petitionerlandowner) of village Naurangabad, Tehsil Tarn Taran, district Amritsar.

Brief facts of the case are that surplus area case of Gurmej Singh (petitioner) was first decided by the Collector Agrarian, Tarn Taran who by his order dated 16.7.1976 declared 1.91 hectores of first quality of land as surplus with him. Aggrieved from this order, he filed an appeal before the Commissioner, on the ground that his two sons (Mangal Singh and Kulwant Singh) were major and also urging that the land in his hand had not been properly evaluated and that he had mortgaged land measuring 8 Kanals 9 Marlas on 21.4.1969 to Gian Chand s/o Maharaj Brahman. The Commissioner, Jullundur Division after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the NaibTeshildar Agrarian, by his order dated 18th August, 1977 remanded the case to the Collector Agrarian, Tarn Taran for deciding the case afresh, after allowing the parties to produce evidence. On remand, the Collector Agrarian, Tarn Taran, by his order dated 8th December, 1977 determined 1.9075 hectores of first quality of land surplus in the hand of the landowner. The actual khasra numbers of his reserved area were selected by the landowner as stated in the subsequent order of the Collector, dated 22nd December, 1977, passed in pursuance of his earlier main order dated 8th December, 1977. Still aggrieved the petitioner (landowner) filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, who dismissed it by the impugned order dated 19th December, 1979. The petitioner has now filed this revision petition before me.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the representatives of the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised almost the same points as the petitioner had urged earlier before the Collector Agrarian and the Commissioner, and has also urged certain new points which were not taken up either at the original or at the appellate stages. The main contentions repeated on behalf of the petitioner are that the petitioner had two sons, namely Mangal Singh and Kulwant Singh who were both major on the appointed day and married having their own separate families; that they being adult were entitled to separate units of 7 hectores; that there were two tubewells, power engines and a kotha in the land which were in possession of his sons for which compensation of Rs. 10,000/ or so had not been given. The counsel for the petitioner has now demanded that the petitioner be allowed to make fresh selection of his permissible area. The NaibTeshsildar, Agrarian has opposed the pleas of the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner had been fully heard at the original and appellate stages and the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise any new point, at the revisional stage. He maintained that so far as the compensation for the tubewells and power engines are concerned, the Collector Agrarian had already given due concession on this account while converting his land into Ist quality of land as would appear from the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner. With regard to kotha, the learned Commissioner in his order dated 16.12.1979 observed that it did not affect the merit of the case. In fact, the petitioner did not raise this point before the Collector Agrarian. The Commissioner before whom the point of compensation of Rs. 10,000/ or so was raised, observed that the demand was frivolous one as the area declared surplus was irrigated by canal. In pursuance of the order of Collector dated the 8th December, 1977, the petitioner had himself furnished the choice of khasra numbers which were declared surplus by the Collector on 22121977. The petitioner in his statement dated 22nd December, 1977 made before the Collector did not state that the land contained any tubewell etc. for which he wanted compensation. It is only now that Sh. Sethi has pointed out, on the basis of an application and the affidavit of the petitioner both dated 5th November, 1981, that khasra No. 400 was in possession of Mangal Singh while khasra No. 381 was in possession of Kulwant Singh (two sons of the landownerpetitioner) and that the tubewells and the 8 H.P. engine/motor were installed in the area. I have seen the record produced before the Collector and the Commissioner and find no force in these contentions. The land declared surplus after allowing the choice of his reserved area to landowner was comprised in khasra Nos. 382, 499, 500 Min. east 501, 504, 440 and 441 Min. east measuring 1.9075 which was all nehri. In this context, any claim in respect of khasra Nos. 381 and 400 at this stage alleged to be in the possession of the sons of the petitioner is not relevant in surplus area proceedings. Another fresh point being taken at the revisional stage on behalf of the petitioner is that he (Gurmej Singh) had by way of a partition and relinquishment deed dated 26th February, 1969 allegedly distributed 7 acres to each of his two sons. A copy of the alleged deed dated 26th February, 1969 has been enclosed with the petition for the first time, which cannot be relied upon as a bona fide deed. It is not understood as to why this point, was not taken before the Collector Agrarian at the original stage and or even before the Commissioner at appellate stage. A revisional court is not the proper forum for agitating fresh points which were not raised at the appropriate level at the proper time. These fresh points being raised now appear to be an attempt on the part of the petitionerlandowner to get his surplus area case reopened for fresh determination, which cannot be allowed at this belated time. The surplus area case of the petitioner was evaluated and determined properly by the Collector Agrarian by his order dated 8th December, 1977 read with his subsequent order dated 22.12.1977. There is also no force in the contention of the petitioner that the land measuring 8 kanals 9 marlas was mortgaged with possession to Gian Chand on 21.4.1969. Despite opportunities afforded to the landowner by the Collector Agrarian and the Commissioner, the petitioner failed to lead any evidence on this point and the transaction was, therefore, rightly ignored while determining his surplus area as is evident from the order of Collector dated 8th December, 1977. The petitioner had also categorically stated he did not want to give any proof with regard to the land mortgaged with Gian Chand. The Collector Agrarian concluded that no area had been mortgaged by him with any one and the entire land was owned by the landowner himself. Anyhow, the petitioner went on agitating this point before the Commissioner who rejected this point as the landowner had failed to substantiate his claim despite giving him many opportunities to adduce evidence. There is, therefore, no force in this repeated claim of the petitioner. As regard the point pressed throughout by the petitioner that his sons Mangal Singh and Kulwant Singh were major on 24th January, 1971, the appointed day his plea has been thrashed out by the Collector and the Commissioner exhaustively and thoroughly in their orders dated 8.12.1977 and 19.12.1979 respectively. The petitioner had not led any evidence before the subordinate officers about the majority of his son, Kulwant Singh. In respect of Mangal Singh, the case of the petitioner has throughout been that he was born on 13.4.1951, according to the School Leaving Certificate obtained from the Headmaster, Government Primary School, Naurangabad. The Collector and the Commissioner, after personally consulting the record observed that the date of birth entries in the School Leaving Certificate were manipulated evidence because the entry about the year `1953'' in the column of the date of birth was found erased by certain chemicals and changed into the year `1951'' in a different ink. In the circumstances, the Collector and Commissioner correctly relied upon the most convincing and reliable evidence, produced by Shri B.D. Joshi, Statistical Assistant, Office of the Civil Surgeon, Amritsar, based on the Register of Births and Deaths of Naurangabad, according to which the correct date of birth of Mangal Singh was 10.10.1953 and it being a finding of fact, does not require any reappraisal. Mangal Singh, therefore, was decidedly not major on the appointed day (241 1971). There is thus no material irregularity or illegality committed by the Collector and the Commissioner in determining 10.10.1953 as the date of birth of Mangal Singh. In this view of the matter neither Mangal Singh nor Kulwant Singh were major on the appointed day. It is settled law that a person who was not major on 24.1.1971 (the appointed day) was not entitled to any separate unit of surplus area. Majority of a person, under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, hinges upon the crucial date of 24.1.1971. I am supported in this connection by a D.B. ruling reported in 1979 P.L.J. 310, Re: Nagender Singh Chohan v. The State of Haryana and others. For determining the date of birth under the Land Reforms Act, the entries in the Birth and Death Register maintained by the competent authorities are the most reliable and trustworthy documents and School Leaving Certificate cannot be treated as more valuable document, as usually no serious attempt or conspicuous care is taken by the parents in getting the correct dates of birth of their children entered in the school register either deliberately or inadvertently and it cannot be called to be a record which cannot be manipulated.

For the reasons given above, there is no force in any of the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner and, I, therefore, reject the revision petition.

To be communicated.