Kaka Singh . vs State of Punjab .

Brief facts of the case are that according to the declaration in Form ''A'' under Rule 5 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1973, filed by Kaka Singh (landowner) on 3.10.1973, he and other members of his family owned and held 313 kanals of land in village Mehal Kalan, tehsil Barnala. The Collector Agrarian, Barnala, after necessary verification made through the field staff, came to the conclusion that the landowner along with members of his family owned and held 8.58.57 hectores of first quality land in the village, on the appointed date i.e. 24.1.1971. After allowing the landowner to retain 7 hectores of first quality land as the permissible area, the Collector Agrarian, Barnala, declared the remaining area measuring 1.58.57 hectores of first quality as surplus with him by his order dated 16.6.1976. 2. By a subsequent order dated 22.6.76, with the written consent of the petitioner, he separated the khasra Nos. to be comprised in the surplus area and also ordered the issue of the warrant of possession. Against the order dated 16.6.76 of the Collector Agrarian, Kaka Singh filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, who dismissed it by her order dated 12.12.1978. He has now filed this revision petition before me.

Main grounds urged by the counsel for the petitioner are that the family of the petitioner consisted of wife, mother, three sons and daughter; that there has been no proper valuation of the land; that the certain area had been recorded as Nehri in the Jamabandi instead of Barani; that the registered mortgage deed in respect of 24 kanals of land executed about 89 years back but subsequently redeemed by his sons, has been incorrectly included in the total holding of the petitioners; that the transfers of land by himself and his wife to the children were bona fide and for consideration, executed under two separate registered deeds and they should have been recognised;that there was only one bore in the land instead of two bores as alleged. The representatives of the state, in rebuttal, have led me through the well reasoned and detailed orders dated 16.6.1976 and 22.6.1976 of the Collector Agrarian, Barnala, and other dated 12121978 of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, in which all these aspects haves exhaustively been dealt with by them. In respect of mortgage deed for Rs. 9,000/ in favour of one Amar Singh, no evidence was ever produced before the Collector Agrarian or the Commissioner, but since this land was got redeemed by the sons of the petitioner, it has correctly been included in the total holding of the petitioner as will be seen from para 7 of the Commissioner''s order which clarified the position. In respect of other two registered deeds of June 1973 transferring the land by Kaka Singh, landowner himself and his wife Smt. Ajaib Kaur to his sons Ranjit Singh and Jagdev Singh, each for Rs. 20,000/, the Revenue Officers have not committed any illegality or irregularity in ignoring these transactions, having been executed after 2.4.1973 as they are clearly hit by provisions of Section 4(5) of the Act, 1972. Similarly, Civil Court decree of December 1973 in a declaratory suit transferring 1/2 share in the land by the husband to his wife and sons could not be sustained in the eyes of law, being collusive transaction to defeat the very purpose of the Act. There is also no force in his contention in respect of the alleged incorrect valuation and assessment of the surplus area. The learned Commissioner has thoroughly gone into these aspects in paras 8,9 and 10 of her impugned order and I do not see any reason to differ with her conclusions in regard to these pleas. Moreover, no area can be claimed for the mother of the landowner as she is not a member of the family in view of the provision under Section 3(4) of the Act, 1972 ibid.

Shri N.N. Puri, counsel for the petitioner, moved an application with an affidavit dated 23.4.1982 on behalf of Ranjit Singh that Kaka Singh, petitioner, died six months back and his sons, Ranjit Singh, Jagdev Singh and his daughter Sukhdev Kaur be brought on record. Today, however, Shri N.N. Puri has revealed that Kaka Singh died on 5.9.1982. It means that earlier application dated 23.4.1982 by Ranjit Singh son of Kaka Singh, duly signed by Shri N.N. Puri, Advocate, that Kaka Singh died Six months back, was totally false, I am constrained to observe that Shri Puri, Advocate, should not have associated himself with such a false affidavit. It is also clear that the petitioner has not come before me with a clear conscience in this case.

If the landowner has now died, his legal representatives are entitled to the benefit what the deceased had received in respect of permissible area allowed to him by the Collector by his order dated 16.6.1976 read with his subsequent order dated 22.6.1976. Surplus area proceedings commenced in 1973 when Kaka Singh was alive and the status of the landowner and his holding had to be assessed when he filed his return on 3.10.1973 in form ''A'', keeping in view the material appointed date i.e. 24.1.1971. I am of the confirmed view that once the surplus area is determined, the liability to surrender and deliver possession of the surplus area does not any way cease with the death of the landowner. The persons on whom holding of the landowner devolves after his death, would consequently be liable to surrender and deliver possession of the surplus area and heirs of the deceased cannot be permitted to contend to the contrary and allowed to secure more land. They as heirs at law would be entitled only to such of the land that may remain with them after surrendering the surplus land determined with the landowner during his life time under the Act. I am supported in my view by the ruling of the Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1982 S.C. 865. Though the Supreme Court case relates to the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 yet the legal provisions discussed therein are almost similar to those of the Punjab Act. Any other construction in law would make the Punjab Act even unworkable and the determination of the surplus area ambulatory and indefinite.

For the reasons given above, I do not find any force in the revision petition and dismiss it accordingly.

Announced.