Gurnam Singh vs State of Punjab

H.S. Bedi, J.—The petitioner, a landowner of village Kahangarh Bhutna, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, has filed the present petition impugning the orders Annexure P1, P3 and P6.

This petition arises out of the following facts :

The petitioner, who is a big landowner, was proceeded against, under the provisions of Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the `Pepsu Act''). The Collector vide his order dated 23rd July, 1963 declared an area of 17.68 Std. Acres as surplus. The petitioner then filed a revision before the Commissioner under section 32D(4) of the Pepsu Act and the order dated 23rd July, 1963 was set aside vide order dated 29th January, 1969 and a direction was made by the Commissioner that the matter be redecided on merit. It is the conceded position that between the two dates i.e. 23.7.1963 and 29.1.1969 the surplus area in the hands of the petitioner was duly utilized. On remand, the Collector Agrarian went into the controversy and vide order dated 17th January, 1971 (Annexure P1 to the petitioner) redetermined the surplus area and came to the conclusion that 17.68 std. acres of land was once again to be declared as surplus. The appeal taken to the Commissioner against the aforesaid order was also rejected on 20th October, 1971. The petitioner thereafter approached the Financial Commissioner who vide his order dated 8 June, 1972 (Annexure P2 to the petition) set aside the order of the Commissioner and remanded the same to him for redecision. The matter was again taken up before the Commissioner in pursuance of the remand order and the Commissioner vide his order dated 17th July, 1973 (Annexure P3 to the petition) rejected the appeal. The petitioner aggrieved by the order against him, referred to above, filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner and he vide his order dated 22nd April, 1982 (Annexure P6 to the petition) dismissed the revision petition on two grounds; Firstly that no revision petition was maintainable and, Secondly that as the land in question had been utilized between the years 1964, 1965 and 1968 i.e. long before coming into force the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the `Punjab Act'') no fresh determination in the hands of the petitioner was required to be made and in the light of the fact that the land stood utilized, the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ranjit Ram v. The Financial Commissioner Revenue Punjab and others, 1981 PLJ 259 was not applicable to the facts of the present case. The petitioner has accordingly come to this court by way of the present petition.

Mr. Sarjit Singh, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has urged that admittedly the land had been utilized after it had been declared surplus on July 23, 1963 and as this order had been set aside by the Commissioner vide his order dated 29th January, 1969 the utilization ipso facto was liable to fall through. He has urged that merely because the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner had subsequently found that the area of 17.68 std. acres which had been declared surplus vide order dated 23rd July, 1963 had again been declared surplus in the subsequent orders would not make any difference as far as the petitioner''s case was concerned as admittedly no fresh order of utilization had been passed after 29th January, 1969.

As against this, Mr. Hemant Gupta, the Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, has urged that as the land stood utilized prior to coming into force of the Punjab Act, the exception carved out in Ranjit Ram''s case (supra) was not available and that in any case once the order of 23rd July, 1963 had been set aside it was incumbent on the petitioner to move the authorities for restitution of the land that had been taken away from him and not having done so, could not claim any benefit now.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their help. It is the conceded case that after the order dated 23rd July, 1963 had been set aside vide order dated 29th January, 1969, no fresh order of utilization had ever been made and as a matter of fact the positive case of the respondentState is that the area had been utilized between the years 196465 and in 1968. I am, therefore, of the opinion that once the order dated 23rd July, 1963 had cased to hold the field, the utilization itself was liable ipso facto fall through.

In the light of the facts stated above, I am of the opinion that the area in the hands of the petitioner has to be redetermined in the light of Ranjit Ram''s case (supra) as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Ujjagar Singh v. The Collector, Bathinda, 1996 PLJ 505 : 1996(3) RCR (Civil) 446 (SC) as it is the positive case of the petitioner in the writ petition that he had three adult sons on the appointed date.

Mr. Gupta''s argument that it was for the petitioner to claim restitution so as to get over the fact that the land had been utilized prior to coming into force of the Punjab Act, is also to no avail. Once the order dated 23rd July, 1963 had been set aside, it was incumbent upon the respondentState to restore the land in question to the petitioner. It is also the positive case of the petitioner that he had made all efforts to get restoration of the land that had been taken away from him, but to no avail.

This petition is accordingly allowed, the orders Annexures P1, P3 and P6 are quashed and a direction is issued to the Collector Agrarian to redetermine the holding in the hands of the petitioner in the light of the judgment in Ranjit Ram''s case and Ujjagar Singh''s case (supra) and in view of the provisions of the Punjab Act.

The parties to appear before the Collector on November 3, 1997.