Hanuman vs State of Punjab

Darshan Kumar, F.C.

These two revision petitions are directed against the order dated 9.12.1991 of Commissioner, Ferozepore Division, Ferozepore, whereby he has rejected toe appeals filed by both the appellants against the two orders dated 30.3.1990 and 23.5.1990 passed by Special Collector (Agrarian), District Ferozepore, headquarters at Fazilka, Camp Abohar. In the first case, the Special Collector has passed order on 30.3.1990 and in the second case he has passed order on 23.5.90 and both the orders have been passed under Section 9(1) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the New Act).

Surplus area case of the big landowner Rulia Ram son of Rangu Ram, the father of respondents No. 2 and 3, has been determined under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Old Act). Appeals/Revision Petitions filed by the vendees against the order of determination of surplus area have been rejected upto the level of Financial Commissioner, Punjab, while determination of surplus area has not been challenged by the landowner or his successors. As common question of law and facts is involved in the two cases, both the revision petitions are being disposed of by this single order a copy of which be placed on each file.

The petitioner in the first case has purchased the land measuring 38 kanals, 16 marlas comprised in Rect. No. 1475(712), 6(712), 15(712) Rect No. 148 kila No. (180), 10(80) situated in village Dhaban Kokaran, Tehsil Fazilza, from the big landowner father of respondents No. 2 and 3'' but date of the sale ''has not been disclosed. Manphool, the petitioner in the second case, has purchased the land measuring 32 kanals, comprised in Rect. No. 148 kills No 11(80), 12(80), 19(80), 20(80) situated in the same village from the same landowner through a registered sale deed on 23.1.1969.

I have heard the counsel for the petitioners as well as the Senior State Counsel who has appeared on behalf of the State. The Id. counsel for the two petitioners has argued that the landowner (Rulia Ram) has died on 21.4.1980 and as his surplus area has not been utilised, it has to be redetermined under the New Act in the hands of his heirs as has been held in the rulings reported in 1980 PLJ 354 and 1982 PLJ 223. According to him, after redetermination of surplus area as stated above, the heirs will become small landowners and the land in dispute will not be available for utilisation.

The Senior State Counsel has opposed the revision petitions. Referring to the rulings cited by the Id. counsel for the two petitioners he has clarified that these rulings are not favourable to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners, as vendees, have no locus standi to claim redetermination of surplus area and nor has it been proved that after redetermination of surplus area, the heirs of the vendor landowner will be declared small landowners.

I have taken into consideration the arguments advanced on behalf of the two petitioners as well as the State. There is a legal question to be decided in the two revision petitions as to whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief under the law.

Surplus area of the deceased landowners, Rulia Ram, has been determined under the Old Act and the petitioners have purchased the land in dispute before his death. Under Section 10A(c) of the Old Act all such transfers, as have the effect of diminishing surplus area, have to be ignored. It is an admitted fact that the vendees in both the cases have purchased the land from the big landowner after the appointed date i.e. 15.4.1953. So far as the two ruling cited on behalf of the petitioners are concerned, I am inclined to agree with the learned Senior State Counsel that the ruling are not helpful to the petitioners. As per 1980 PLJ 354, the case has been contested by the heirs of the big landowner but in the present case the plea for redetermination of surplus area is being advanced by the vendees. In the ruling reported in 1982 PLJ 223 while the plea has been taken by the vendees but the facts in that case are not similar to those of the present revision petitions. In the case discussed in 1982 PLJ 223, the Hon''ble Single Judge has mentioned that the primary challenge of the petitioners is that transferor was not a big landowner and thus transfer in their favour was not hit by the provisions of the Old Act. In the two revision petitions before me it is not the case of the vendees that their transferor was not a big landowner. Otherwise too, there is no reason to presume that after redetermination of surplus area the heirs of the deceased landowner will automatically be declared small landowners. In the case of present revision petitions, the determination of surplus area has neither been challenged by the big landowner during his lifetime and nor by his heirs at any time. Even after his death his heirs have not staked their claim for redetermination of surplus area. It is a common knowledge that heirs of a big landowner to ask for redetermination of surplus area after his death if they are likely to gain on redetermination. However, where the heirs of a big landowner are already big landowners in their own right or have become big landowners after inheritance from a deceased landowner, they may not claim redetermination of surplus area. In the present case, the heirs of the landowner have not claimed redetermination of surplus area, there is no reason to presume that they will be declared small landowners on redetermination and in the absence of such a declaration the petitioners, who ate vendees from the big landowner, are not entitled to any relief after purchasing the land from surplus area.

In the light of the discussion in the foregoing paragraph, both the revision petitions are without any substance and are here by dismissed in limine.

Announced.