Gurpal Singh vs State of Punjab

A.S. Pooni, F.C.

This is a revision petition under Section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act against the order dated 7.5.1991 of Commissioner Ferozepur Division.

Facts briefly are that vide order dated 16.2.1961, Collector (Agrarian) Fazilka declared 5 standard acres 83/4 units of land surplus with the petitioner. Consequent to consolidation operations in village Danger Khera, proceedings were initiated under Section 24A(2) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and an area of 44 Kanals 10 Marlas was separated as the surplus area of the landowner. Respondents 2 to 9 filed an appeal against this order which was accepted by the Commissioner Ferozepur Division on 7.7.1987 and the case was remanded to the Special Collector (Agrarian) Fazilka for a fresh decision. The Special Collector decided the case on 3.11.1987 and while declaring 5 standard acres 83/4 units of land surplus with the petitioner included the land purchased by the respondents in the reserved area of the landowner. Thereupon the landowner filed an appeal before the Commissioner Ferozepur Division pleading that the land purchased by the vendees on 3.5.1972 could not be included in his permissible area. His appeal having been dismissed the landowner has come up in revision.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Sh. J.S. Yadav, counsel for the petitioner, urges that the Collector has given a clear finding that the lines "Zameen muzkur surplus ki na hai, balke meri reserve ki zameen hai" are written in different ink. The learned counsel contends that in view of this finding it should be obvious that these lines were written after the saledeed was executed. There is no basis for the finding that these lines were written by the same deedwriter. The learned counsel, therefore, contends that the area sold in favour of the respondents 2 to 9 could not be included in the permissible area of the petitioner, who even otherwise was competent to make a fresh selection after the consolidation operations.

I find no force in the plea of the learned counsel. While it is quite clear that the lines in question are in a different ink, there is no evidence on the basis of which it could be concluded that these were added after the registration of the saledeed. In any case, the controversy about these lines is not crucial to the decision of this case. The evidence of the recital in the saledeed is at best of secondary importance in so far as the nature of the land transferred through the saledeed is concerned. What is crucial to the case is as to whether the land sold on 3.5.1972 was included in the surplus area of the landowner. It is pertinent that the surplus area was determined on 16.2.1961. This order declares 35 Bighas and 16 Biswas of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 605, 368 and 484 (Min) as the surplus area of the landowner. The consolidation of holdings took place after the saledeed was executed. The record shows that the area measuring 16 Bighas and 16 Biswas purchased by respondents 2 to 9 was out of Khasra No. 824 (Min), which was a part of the permissible area of the landowner. The Special Collector (Agrarian) has, therefore, correctly included this area in the permissible area of the landowner. I also see no merit in the argument that the petitioner was competent to make a fresh selection consequent to the completion of consolidation operations. Proceedings under Section 24A(2) do not by any means imply redetermination of the surplus area of a landowner. These are merely proceedings for declaring his surplus area in terms of the postconsolidation khasra numbers. These proceedings, therefore, do not authorise the landowner to make a fresh selection of his permissible area. I see no reason for interfering with the findings of the subordinate revenue officers. The revision petition is dismissed.

Announced.