Mukhtiar Singh vs State of Punjab

S.R. Bunger, F.C.

The present is a revision petition under Section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, read with Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, against the order dated 26.6.1996, passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot in a surplus area case.

The facts of this case are, that, Mukhtiar Singh son of Lal Singh resident of Panjgara in, District Faridkot, had filed a declaration in form ''A'' with the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, on 3.10.1973, as required under Section 5 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, read with Rule 5 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1973. Mukhtiar Singh, in his declaration, had stated that his one son named Boota Singh, was major on the appointed date i.e. 24.1.1971. The Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, had accepted the contents of this declaration; and, vide his order dated 5.3.1976 had filed the surplus area proceedings, by concluding that there was no surplus area with Mukhtiar Singh. Against this order, one Sucha Singh son of Deva Singh, resident of Village Panjgarain Kalan, had filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, mainly on the ground that Mukhtiar Singh had wrongly been given benefit of an adult son, who was minor on the appointed day, as, his date of birth as per the school record was 10th March, 1955. The Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, vide his order dated 5.10.1976, had remanded the case to the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, with a direction to finalize early the pending enquiry before him, regarding the age of Boota Singh, on the appointed day. The Collector (Agrarian), after considering the evidence led by both the sides, vide his order dated 25.4.1977, had concluded, that, Boota Singh was not major on 24.1.1971, and as such, Mukhtiar Singh, the landowner, was not entitled to claim a separate unit for his son Boota Singh. Thus, an area measuring 3.41 Hectares was declared as surplus in the hands of Mukhtiar Singh. Despite two chances having been given, to intimate the details of the area with Khasra numbers to be declared surplus with him Mukhtiar Singh had failed to do so. So, the Collector (Agrarian) vide his order dated 25.4.1977, had declared an area measuring 71 Kanals and 5 Marlas as surplus, comprised in the Khasra numbers as mentioned in the aforesaid order.

Against this order, Mukhtiar Singh had filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, but the same was rejected vide Commissioner''s order dated 24.1.1979. Aggrieved by this order, Mukhtiar Singh had filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab; who, vide his order dated 24th September, 1985, had accepted the same; the operative part of which reads as follows :

"I accept this revision, set aside all the orders below viz. of the learned Commissioner dated 6.10.1976 and 24.1.1979 and those of the learned Collector dated 5.3.1976 and 25.4.1977 and direct the Collector Agrarian Faridkot to decide, afresh, the surplus area case of the petitioner."

In pursuance of this remand order, the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, vide his order dated 18.11.1987, had concluded that Boota Singh was minor on the appointed day viz. 24.1.1971; and, an area measuring 3.41 Hectares of the first quality land was rightly declared as surplus with Mukhtiar Singh. During the pendency of the proceedings, the complainant Sucha Singh had expired and his legal representatives were brought on the record. In his order, the Collector had observed, that, his predecessor had included those Khasra numbers in the surplus area, which belong to Balbir Singh; and in fact, the land to be declared as surplus, was required to be taken from the land held by Mukhtiar Singh, whose surplus area case was under consideration. Despite the opportunities provided to Mukhtiar Singh, to intimate the Khasra numbers to be included in the surplus area, he had failed to do so; and ultimately he had absented himself before the Collector (Agrarian) and was proceeded against exparte. So, the Collector (Agrarian) had declared an area measuring 69 Kanals and 19 Marlas, comprised in six Khasra numbers as surplus, and this was reflected in Annexure ''A'', annexed to the Collector''s order dated 18.11.1987.

Against this order, Mukhtiar Singh had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala and Ferozepur Divisions, Camp at Ferozepur, which was partly accepted; as per his order dated 18.11.1992. The operative part of this order reads as follows :

"I do not find any merit in the contention regarding date of birth of Buta Singh and reject the appeal to that extent. However, I partly accept the appeal and allow the appellant to exercise the choice regarding his permissible area. If the appellant fails to exercise the choice on the first date of hearing without any sufficient cause then the order of the Collector (Agrarian) dated 18.11.1987 shall be final. The learned counsel for the respondent and the State representative have no objection if the appellant is allowed to retain these six Khasra numbers and surrenders equivalent land as surplus area. The parties are directed to appear before the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, on 5.1.1993."

In pursuance of this order, the case was taken up by the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, and Mukhtiar Singh was directed to convey his choice of Khasra numbers on 15.2.1993. On 15.2.1993, Mukhtiar Singh had again failed to give his option, and the case was adjourned to 25.2.1993. On 25.2.1993, Mukhtiar Singh had absented himself; as such, the Collector (Agrarian) had confirmed the order dated 18.11.1987, passed by his predecessor, vide his order dated 25.2.1993.

Against this order, Mukhtiar Singh had filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, which was accepted vide his order dated 10th October, 1994. The operative part of this order reads as follows :

"The record of the case has been called. Its perusal does not give any satisfactory explanation as to why the appellant failed to exercise the choice in terms of the order dated 18.11.1992 of the Commissioner (Appeals). However, taking a lenient view, I permit the landowner one more opportunity to exercise his choice. He is permitted to file a list of Khasra numbers to be retained as his permissible area in the Court of Collector Agrarian, on or before 14.11.1994 subject to the payment of Rs. 250/ in the lower Court as costs. No further opportunity would be given. The order already passed will stand confirmed in case he fails to exercise his choice by the stipulated date. In case he furnishes a list of Khasra numbers, the Collector Agrarian may examine the list, hear the tenants/vendees, if there are any on the land, and other concerned persons and pass an appropriate order.

The appellant is directed to appear before Collector Agrarian, Faridkot, on 14.11.1994."

In the meantime, the revision petition filed by Mukhtiar Singh, against the order dated 18.11.1992, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala and Ferozepur Divisions, Ferozepur was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Appeals, vide his order dated 28.7.1993.

In pursuance of the Commissioner''s order dated 10.10.1994, the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, vide his order dated 31.3.1995 had declared an area measuring 70 Kanals 9 Marlas equivalent to 3.41 Hectares of first quality land, comprised in the Khasra numbers, as detailed in the Annexure to the said order, which were conveyed by Mukhtiar Singh. Before this, the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, had adjourned the case on 14.11.1994 to 15.11.1994; on which date, Mukhtiar Singh had sought extension to convey his choice regarding Khasra numbers to be declared as surplus, which was allowed, and the case was adjourned to 23.11.1994, on which date, Mukhtiar Singh had conveyed his choice, which was accepted by the Collector (Agrarian).

Aggrieved by this order, Balbir Singh etc. had filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, which was accepted vide Commissioner''s order dated 26.6.1996; the impugned order was set aside and the case was remanded to the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, with a direction, that, he should declare those Khasra numbers as surplus, "which are in the possession of respondent (Mukhtiar Singh), equivalent to the land declared surplus vide impugned order."

The present revision petition (not appeal as stated) is directed against this order.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, the Senior State Counsel on behalf of the State, and the learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 have been heard. I am also assisted with the written arguments submitted on behalf of all the parties.

After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the written arguments submitted by the parties and thorough perusal of the record, I am of the view, that, the present revision petition has no merit and the same deserves to be rejected; the order dated 18.11.1987, passed by the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot needs to be upheld; and, the order dated 26.5.1996, passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot needs to be modified to the extent, that so far as the setting aside of the order dated 31.3.1995, passed by the Collector (Agrarian) is concerned, this part of the order is upheld and confirmed; and, so far as, the remand of the case to the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, for declaring those Khasra numbers as surplus, which are in possession of Mukhtiar Singh'' is quashed, being uncalled for, as the Khasra numbers declared as surplus vide order dated 18.11.1987, passed by the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot will hold good.

At the outset, it may be pointed out, that, throughout, the attitude, conduct and behaviour of Mukhtiar Singh has been totally uncooperative; evasive; protractive and contumacious, marked by hoodwinking approach, which is reprehensible.

From day one, Mukhtiar Singh had not made clean breast of the facts of this case, and had tried to mislead and confuse the concerned authorities. Under Section 5(1) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, Mukhtiar Singh was required to select his permissible area and to intimate his selection to the Collector, as he owned area in excess of the permissible area, on the appointed day. But, in his declaration in form ''A'', No. 96, dated 3.10.1973, he had given false information by stating that his son Buta Singh was major on the appointed day; and had thus claimed, a separate unit of permissible area for him, for which he was not entitled, as he was minor on the appointed day, as established in the subsequent inquiry. Mukhtiar Singh was fully aware, that, Buta Singh was minor on the appointed day; because, at the time of admission of Buta Singh to the Government High School, Panj Garain Kalan, his date of birth was got recorded as 10th March, 1955 by him. However, Mukhtiar Singh had engaged himself in a very long litigation before the various authorities on the plea that his son Buta Singh was major on the appointed days and as such, was entitled for a separate unit of permissible area. This litigation had come to an end with the order dated 28th July, 1993, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Appeals, Punjab, Chandigarh, vide which, the revision petition (R.O.R. No. 118/199192) filed by Mukhtiar Singh was dismissed. Mukhtiar Singh does not appear to have further challenged this order, and has attained finality. With this, it has clearly been established beyond any doubt, that, Buta Singh was not major on the appointed day, and as such, Mukhtiar Singh had intentionally filed a declaration in form ''A'', which contained false information, which is culpable under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972.

The undue benefit of one additional unit of permissible area claimed by Mukhtiar Singh, on behalf of his son Buta Singh, which was allowed by the Collector''s order dated 5th March, 1976, was withdrawn vide order dated 25.4.1977, passed by the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, who had declared an area measuring 3.41 Hectares (F.Q.L.) as surplus with Mukhtiar Singh. As mentioned by the Collector in his order, Mukhtiar Singh was given two chances to indicate his choice for the land to be included in the surplus pool, but, he had failed to do so, and resultantly, the Collector was compelled to declare an area measuring 71 Kanals and 5 Marlas (with specific Khasra numbers) situate at Village Panj Garain Kalan, as surplus with Mukhtiar Singh. An appeal filed by Mukhtiar Singh against this order was rejected by the learned Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, vide his order dated 24.1.1979. However, the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab, had quashed these orders vide his order dated 24.9.1985 and had remanded the case for fresh decision to the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot.

In pursuance of this remand order, the Collector, Faridkot, vide his order dated ]8.11.1987 had again declared an area measuring 3.41 Hectares of first quality land as surplus with Mukhtiar Singh. Before the Collector, Mukhtiar Singh had absented himself and was proceeded against exparte; and had thus, failed to exercise his right for conveying Khasra numbers which could be included in the surplus pool. In the absence of that, the Collector had exercised the authority vested in him and had declared an area measuring 69 Kanals and 19 Marlas (with specific khasra number) as surplus, as indicated in the Annexure ''A'' of the order.

More than two decades have passed; but, Mukhtiar Singh has not parted with the surplus land, and has been unjustly enjoying its usufruct all these years. In an appeal filed by Mukhtiar Singh against this order dated 18.11.1987, the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala and Ferozepur Divisions, Camp at Ferozepur, vide his order dated 18.11.1992, had taken an extremely lenient view, by allowing Mukhtiar Singh to exercise his choice regarding his permissible area, although, the Collector (Agrarian) had very rightly passed his order dated 18.11.1987, keeping in view, the circumstances of the case and attitude of Mukhtiar Singh. The Commissioner (Appeals) order was conditional. It had clearly directed, that, "If the appellant (Mukhtiar Singh) fails to exercise the choice on the first date of hearing without any sufficient cause then the order of the Collector (Agrarian) dated 18.11.1987 shall be final."

As revealed from the record, the parties had appeared before the Collector (Agrarian) Faridkot, on 29.1.1993; on this date, the case was adjourned to 15.2.1993 and Mukhtiar Singh was directed to submit his choice of Khasra numbers on 15.2.1993; on this date also, Mukhtiar Singh had failed to submit any choice of Khasra numbers and the case was adjourned to 25.2.1993. Again, on this date, Mukhtiar Singh had failed to intimate his choice. Thereafter, the Collector (Agrarian) vide his order dated 25.2.1993, had concluded, that, as Mukhtiar Singh had failed to convey his choice of Khasra numbers, in compliance of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 18.11.1992, so, the order dated 18.11.1987, passed by the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, be taken as valid and intact. This order clearly shows, that, what to talk of the first hearing before the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, Mukhtiar Singh had failed to intimate his choice even on the adjourned dates also. This gives ample proof of the contumacious attitude on the part of Mukhtiar Singh.

Against the Collector''s order dated 25.2.1993, Mukhtiar Singh had filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur; who again had taken a very lenient view, and had permitted the landowner Mukhtiar Singh, one more opportunity to exercise his choice. As per his order dated 10th October, 1994, the learned Commissioner had permitted Mukhtiar Singh to file a list of Khasra numbers, to be retained as his permissible area, in the Court of the Collector (Agrarian), on or before 14.11.1994, subject to the payment of Rs. 250/ in the lower Court as costs. It was further stipulated in this order, that, "No further opportunity would be given. The order already passed will stand confirmed in case he fails to exercise his choice by the stipulated date."

In pursuance of this, the case was taken up by the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, and as revealed from the interim orders passed by the Collector, Mukhtiar Singh had appeared before the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot on 14.11.1994, but had failed to give his option about the Khasra numbers. This clearly establishes, that Mukhtiar Singh had failed to comply with the directions given by the learned Commissioner in his order; and in view of that, the order dated 25.2.1993, should have remained intact and should have become final.

However, on 14.11.1994, the case was adjourned to 15.11.1994; on which date, on the request of Mukhtiar Singh the case was adjourned to 23.11.1994; and thereafter, after a number of adjournments, the Collector (Agrarian), had passed his order dated 31.3.1995. In this order, the Collector (Agrarian) had observed, that, out of the jointland, Mukhtiar Singh was in possession of less area than his due share, and the other party namely, Balbir Singh etc., were in possession of more land than their share. Thus, the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, had declared 70 Kanals and 9 Marlas of land, comprised in those specific Khasra numbers, as surplus with Mukhtiar Singh, which were conveyed by him. Interestingly, these Khasra numbers were not in possession of Mukhtiar Singh; but in the possession of Balbir Singh etc.

Analysis of the order dated 31.3.1995, passed by the Collector (Agrarian) would show, that, by passing this order, the Collector had overstepped his authority; and had passed an unsustainable, untenable and uncalled for order. The directions given by the learned Commissioner, in pursuance of which, the Collector (Agrarian), was seized of this case, were clear and categorical, and were grossly violated by Mukhtiar Singh; but, the Collector (Agrarian), had gone out of the way to accommodate the viewpoint of Mukhtiar Singh, perhaps with ulterior motives.

It is clearly provided under Section 5(2) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, that in making the selection of permissible area, the big landowner is required to include, firstly, land mortgaged without possession and, secondly, land under selfcultivation......In his order, dated 31.3.1995, the Collector (Agrarian) had included those Khasra numbers as surplus with Mukhtiar Singh, which were not in his physical possession, but were in possession of the other cosharers in the jointland. To justify his uncalled for order, the Collector had advanced the reason, that, Mukhtiar Singh was in possession of less area, and the other cosharers Balbir Singh etc., were in possession of more area, than their due shares in the jointland. But, the Collector had recorded his observation in a most generalised way, and had not done any arithmetical calculation, as to how much area was possessed by each party, to hammer home his point. Apparently, the Collector''s order is vague, nonspeaking and non specific.

As mentioned earlier, the Collector should have accepted those Khasra numbers, to be declared as surplus with Mukhtiar Singh, which were in his physical possession, and should have simply ignored the other Khasra numbers, which were not in his possession. In the alternative, if the Collector was really convinced that Mukhtiar Singh was in possession of less area than his due share in the jointland which should not have been his concern then before passing his order, the Collector should have taken recourse to the provisions contained under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 and should have separated the share of Mukhtiar Singh from out of the jointland. As the Collector, had failed to do so, his order dated 31.3.1995 does not stand the scrutiny of law, and as such, deserves to be quashed.

Moreover, as revealed from the record, the said land already stood divided amongst its cosharers privately as per the document dated 27.5.1958 exhibited ''X'', which may not be a proper partition of land, in the strict sense of the term, but it certainly in a pointer and an indicator to the exclusive cultivating possession of the cosharers in the jointland. In view of this, the Collector (Agrarian) had no business to include those Khasra numbers in the surplus area, which were not in the physical possession of Mukhtiar Singh, but were in possession of some of the respondents. On the whole, the Collector''s order is very bad in law.

Aggrieved by the Collector''s order dated 31.3.1995, Balbir Singh, Babu Singh etc. had filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, and on the creation of a separate Division, Faridkot, the case was decided by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, vide his order dated 26.6.1996, as per which, the appeal was accepted; the impugned order was set aside, and the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, was directed to declare the Khasra numbers as surplus with Mukhtiar Singh, which were in his possession.

Aggrieved by this order, Mukhtiar Singh had filed the present revision petition dated 28.8.1996, by stating it to be an appeal, with a prayer, that, the order dated 26.6.1996, passed by the learned Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot be set aside, and the order dated 31.3.1995, passed by the Collector (Agrarian) be upheld.

A landowner with a recalcitrant attitude, whose sole objective seems to continue to retain the declared surplus area with him, as long as possible, either through use or abuse of the process of law, deserves no leniency or sympathetic consideration; and, as such, Mukhtiar Singh''s applecart should have been disturbed long age, in view of the fact that, he had intentionally ignored to avail of the opportunities provided, to exercise his discretion, in the selection of Khasra numbers to be declared as surplus area, in the years 1977, 1987, 1993 and then in 1994, with a view to prolong the proceedings.

I must say, Mukhtiar Singh has succeeded in his mission to a great extent; and, has managed to keep the surplus area with him till date, over the last 21 years by now. Apparently, the authorities had failed to see through his nefarious game.

One may tend to term this as a sad commentary on our implementation of Land Reforms in the State. Alas ! this could be avoidable. The Commissioner, Faridkot Division, should have refrained from granting further opportunity to Mukhtiar Singh, to exercise his option, which was totally nondeserving and uncalled for.

In view of the discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs, the present revision petition has no merit, and the same deserves to be rejected; however, the order dated 26.6.1996, passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, needs to be modified to the extent, that, so far it sets aside, the order dated 31.3.1995, passed by the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, it is O.K., being in order, but so far as, the order relates to the remanding of the case to the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot for declaring the Khasra numbers as part of the surplus area, this is uncalled for, because, by taking an overall view of the facts of the case, and the attitude and conduct of Mukhtiar Singh, the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot had rightly declared the Khasra numbers as surplus vide his order dated 18.11.1987, which were in possession of Mukhtiar Singh. This order was further ratified with the Collector''s order dated 25.2.1993, and further validated by the order dated 10.10.1994, passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, as Mukhtiar Singh had failed to comply with the directions given in this order. The Collector''s order dated 31.3.1995 had rightly been set aside; and in view of this, the area measuring 69 Kanals and 19 Marlas, comprised in six Khasra numbers situate at Village Panjgarain, as indicated in Annexure ''A'', to the order dated 18.11.1987, passed by the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, will hold good as surplus with Mukhtiar Singh.

The SubDivisional Officer (Civil)cumCollector (Agrarian), Faridkot, is directed to take physical possession of these Khasra numbers, vest it in the State, in accordance with the procedure laid down under the law; and utilize the same under the provisions of the Punjab Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1973, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order by him.

As, the landowner Mukhtiar Singh had furnished the declaration in form ''A'' dated 3.10.1973, by giving false information about the age of his son Buta Singh, he needs to be prosecuted, in view of the provisions contained in Section 7(2) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. The necessary proceedings be initiated forthwith by the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot.

The record of this case be delivered to the SubDivisional Officer (Civil)cumCollector (Agrarian), Faridkot, by hand through a special messenger. Announced.