Krishan Kumar vs State of Punjab

R.C. Kapila, F.C.

This is a revision petition filed by Krishan Kumar resident of village Kikarwala, Tehsil Fazilka, under section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 read with section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 against the order dated the 1st February, 1979 of the Additional Commissioner, Ferozepur Division.

Brief facts of the case are that the landowner owned and held 369 kanals 6 marlas land in village Kikarwala which was irrigated by the Eastern Canal. According to the entries in Khasra Girdawari for 1970 land measuring 354 kanals 7 marlas was shown nehri and 14 kanals 9 marlas as barani. When converted into land of first quality worked out to 9.2720 hectores. Landowner was entitled to 7 hectores of land as his permissible area and the remaining land measuring 2.2720 hecatres was declared surplus by the Collector Agrarian, Fazilka by his order dated the 15th February, 1977. According to the statement part `B'' prepared by the Patwari an area measuring 10 Kanals was shown as purchased from the landowner by one Sohan Lal on 18.8.1972 under orders of Assistant Collector I Grade. The petitioner, however, contends that the land purchased by Sohan Lal is 120 kanals and not 10 kanals. Original khasra girdawari for the year 1970 was checked by Collector Agrarian who did not find Sohan Lal as tenant on the land. It was however corrected later on in order to show Sohan Lal as tenant. The Collector Agrarian found this sale as collusive and ignored it. Landowner went in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, who rejected the appeal by his order dated the Ist February, 1979. Feeling aggrieved by the above order, Krishan Kumar has come up in revision.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that Sohan Lal purchased 120 kanals of land from the landowner under orders of Assistant Collector I Grade, Fazilka dated the 17th August, 1973 under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 read with section 15 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. This land could not be included in the holding of the petitionerlandowner. He further argued that once an application for purchase under section 18 is allowed and the order of purchase is not appealed against or upset in revision, it becomes final and cannot be questioned on grounds of collusion. He has cited 1969 P.L.R. page 853, in support of his contention. He has also cited 1971 R.L.R. page 525, which lays down that purchase under section 18 cannot be ignored. He further contends that the petitioner filed an application giving the details of the land reserved by him but this application is not available in the record and the petitioner is entitled to make a fresh selection. The valuation of the land has also not been made according to the amended formula, which requires to be looked into.

Counsel for the State, on the other hand, pleads that Sohan Lal was not a tenant on the land in the year 1970. He is neither a resettled tenant nor a tenant who has completed six years on the land in dispute and as such was not entitled to purchase the land. Assistant Collector I Grade, Fazilka passed the order dated the 17th August, 1973 on the statements of the parties but without going through the revenue record. The purchase by Sohan Lal was a collusive one and was rightly ignored by the Collector Agrarian. He further contends that the landowner himself has been shows in cultivating possession of the land.

I have heard both the learned counsel and have gone through the record before me. The land of the landowner has to be evaluated according to the Khasra girdawari of 1970, and the position of the land as it stands then has to be taken into consideration. Sohan Lal was not shown a tenant on the land in the original khasra girdawari for the year 1970. It was corrected afterwards to show him as a tenant. In any case, he was neither a resettled tenant nor one who had spent six years on the land when he applied for the purchase under section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. He was thus in no way entitled to purchase. The argument that he was allowed to purchase by the Assistant Collector 1 Grade vide his order dated the 17th August, 1973 and that this order having not been appealed against should now be treated as final and the purchase as sacrosanctis unconvincing and seeks to put a premium on thoroughly deplorable malpractices to which, I am constrained to point out, the Assistant Collector I Grade, Fazilka was also a party. To treat such a collusive and dishonest decision as unassailable because it had not been appealed against by the State would amount to shutting one''s eyes to realities. The learned counsel has referred to a High Court ruling reported as 1969 P.L.R. p. 853 vide which it has been held that once purchase is allowed under section 18 and it becomes final, it cannot be questioned even on grounds of collusion. Thus ruling, the learned counsel for the State has pointed out, has been overruled by the Supreme Court and that ruling is reported as 1974 P.L.J. p. 74. In any case, while there may be different views on whether or not purchase can be allowed in different circumstances but there can be no two opinions that where a tenant as in the present case, had not spent six years on land and is, through collusion of all concerned, allowed to purchase the land, such purchase should be treated as null and void as far as determining the surplus area is concerned. The learned Collector Agrarian had rightly ignored this order. No other flaw has been pointed out in the declaring of the surplus area by the learned counsel for the petitioner and I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the orders of the learned Additional Commissioner, Ferozepure and dismiss the petition.

Since the orders were reserved, counsel for the parties be informed.