Pirthi Singh vs State of Punjab

R.R. Bhardwaj, FC.

This is a revision petition filed under Section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, directed against the order dated 2.3.1994 passed by Sh. S.R. Bunger, IAS, Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur vide which he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner in limine.

The brief facts of the case are that the surplus area case of Radha Ram, son of Lachhman Ram resident of village Baganiwali, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur was decided under the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 by the Collector (Agrarian), Fazilka vide his order dated 25.1.1977. After leaving permissible area of 7 hectares of first quality land to the landowner, an area measuring 4.8349 hectares of first quality was declared as surplus with the landowner. Thereafter, under the protracted litigation, the case underwent various vicissitudes and ultimately an area measuring 4.8439 hectares of first quality was again declared surplus with the landowner, Radha Ram by the Collector (Agrarian) Fazilka vide his order dated 30.7.1993 and ordered for taking further action under Section 9(1) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. Feeling aggrieved with the above order of Special Collector (Agrarian), Fazilka, petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, on the main ground that they have purchased the land measuring 40 kanals comprised of Khasra No. 84M/22/1/1/(20), 21(80), 83M/23(80), 24(80), 25(80), 87M/3/1(20), 4/1(20), 5/1(20), situated in village Hiranwali, Tehsil Fazilka by Om Parkash and Partap singh, sons of Bhagirath and Smt. Savitri Devi wife of Pirthi Singh, on 2.6.1978, and that area should be exempted. Commissioner, after hearing the petitioners through their counsel dismissed the appeal in limine vide his order dated 2.3.1994. Now, they have come up with the present revision petition along with the stay application before this Court.

The petitioner has challenged the order of the Commissioner on the following grounds :

(1) Petitioner No. 1 is the owner in possession of 2/3rd share and petitioner No. 2 is having 1/3rd share and the total land of the petitioners was in reserved pool at the time of purchase.

(2) That the area was changed from reserved pool to surplus pool at the back of the petitioners and the Collector has not called the petitioners before passing this order.

(3) The reasons for putting in land in surplus pool have not been given clearly and that the landowners have been permitted to select their permissible area, thereby causing loss to the petitioners.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly argued that when they purchased land at that time as per the order of the Collector dated 20.1.1977, this area was part of the reserved area of the landowner. He has also taken up the plea that the area was converted into surplus area at their back.

The learned counsel for the State primarily argued that it was wrong on the part of the petitioner vendees to purchase the land when litigation about this was going on. In this connection, he referred to the rulling of the Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court as recorded in Writ Petition No. 11176 of 1991 and another ruling of the Hon''ble Supreme Court as reported in 1981 PLJ 316 was referred. He also argued that the petitioners were proceeded ex parte when in spite of service and proclamation they did not attend the proceedings.

I have considered the case properly. I am of the opinion that the present petitioners have been victimized because when they purchased the land in 1978, it was part of the reserved area of the landowner. Subsequently, some more land was purchased presumably from the land, which as per the order of the Collector, was part of the surplus pool. I direct the Collector to decide the case afresh keeping in view the dates of various purchases made by various vendees. In my opinion, the land going to the surplus pool should be the one which was purchased last because by that time the area falling in reserve pool and surplus pool was clearly known. I am in agreement with the contention of the petitioners that the land which they purchased in 1978 was a part of reserve area of landowner and the same remained the part of reserve area uptil the year 1993 when the impugned order was passed. With these observations, I dispose of the present revision petition. It is, however, made clear that surplus area measuring 4.8354 hectares of 1st quality may not be diminished or reduced in any way.