Guru Hardip Singh vs State of Punjab

A.S. Pooni, F.C.

The relevant facts of this case are that the Collector Agrarian, Ferozepur vide order dated 14.1.1977 determined the surplus area of the petitioner. The order was challenged by the landowner and after prolonged litigation the case was remanded for a fresh decision by the Financial Commissioner Revenue on 10.5.1983. Vide order dated 8.6.1987 the Special Collector Agrarian, Ferozepur, Headquarters at Fazilka redetermined the surplus area of the petitioner and declared 23.3396 hectares of first quality land as surplus in the hands of the landowner. Since the area selected by the landowner for being included in his permissible area was less than 7 hectares, the deficiency was made up by the Collector by selecting the balance area. This order of the Collector was challenged by the landowner on the ground that some land received by him in exchange was not included in his permissible area. It was also contended that the tenants, permissible area had not been allowed for all the sitting tenants. The plea of the landowner was dismissed by the Commissioner Ferozepur Division vide the impugned order.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that two sale deeds were executed by the landowner on 8.5.1972. He sold land comprised in Khasra No. 47 M/1/5 Kanal to one Jaspal Singh and 47 M/10(80) and 11 (80) to Raghbir Singh, lateron on 25th May, 1974, he exchanded land comprised in Khasra Nos. 61 M/21 (80), 22 (80), 64 M/1 (80) (selected as permissible areas in form ''A'') with the land which had been sold on 8.5.1972. It is contended that the Collector has held the sales to be bona fide but has committed an illegality by ignoring the exchange and including the area received in exchange from the permissible area of the landowner in the surplus pool. The argument of the learned counsel is that since the land which he had transferred in exchange had been selected by him, the area received in exchange should be deemed to carry the same status. It is contended that there is no bar in the Act on the exchange of his permissible area by the landowner. It is further contended that no notice of the proceedings was given to the vendees, and as has been laid down in 1986PLJ612 and 1987PLJ page 248, the impugned order of the Collector is bad in law for this very reason. Yet another contention of the learned counsel is that there were as many as 141 tenants on the land owned by the landowner on the appointed day, but only 63 have been allowed tenant''s permissible area. The claim of the others were identical but have been turned down without cogent reasons.

Sh. O.K. Puri, Senior State Counsel contends that what is being impugned is a concurrent finding of fact by the subordinate revenue officers. No irregularity of law or procedure is being pointed out and therefore, as laid down in 1968PLJ page 118, and 1993PLJ page 229, interference in revision should be declined. The learned counsel further points out that the transfers through sale were for a nominal price, which explains the exchange of the land such a short time after the sale. It is also pointed out that the exchange was made after the commencement of the Act and does not, therefore, give any vested right to the landowner to have the area received in exchange included in his permissible area. In reply the learned counsel for the appellant urges that his plea is of legal nature and since the sales were held to be bona fide, the exchange has to be accepted as legal.

I have considered the pleas of the parties and have gone through the record of the case. It is evident that the sales made by the landowner on 8.5.1972 were held to be bona fide. The Collector has, however, without holding the exchange of land to be illegal, nevertheless kept the area received in exchange out of the permissible area of the petitionerlandowner. The short point for decision, therefore, is as to whether the sale (after the appointed day) of a part of his holding, and thereafter exchange (after the commencement of the Act) of the sold area with a part of the area selected by him gives him a vested right to have the land received back in exchange included in his permissible area, on the ground of its being under his self cultivation. In my considered opinion the answer has to be in the negative. The exchange certainly gives him the right of ownership qua the land received in exchange but nothing over and above it. For the purpose of specifying his permissible area under section 5(2) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 such land cannot be treated at par with land which remained throughout under the selfcultivation of the landowner. The fact that the sale was accepted as bona fide, implies that the land sold has not been considered a part of the holding of the landowner for determining his permissible/surplus area as on the appointed day. If and when, therefore, this land returns to his holding again, the relevant date for his right qua this land shall be the date of this reacquisition. I hold, therefore, that the landowner cannot take advantage of the provisions of section 5(2) qua land acquired by him after the commencement of the Act. No fault can, therefore, be found with the order of the learned Collector.

In so far as the plea regarding the tenants permissible area is concerned, it is on record that the Collector has allowed the same to the eligible tenants. No specific lacuna in this regard has been pointed out by the petitioner. The revision petition is, therefore, without force and is dismissed.

Announced.