Ranjit Singh vs State of Punjab

B.B. Mahajan, F.C.

This is a revision petition under Section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 against the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Jullundur dated the 20th May, 1983 vide which he rejected the appeal of the petitioner.

The brief facts of the case are that the landowner submitted a declaration in form ''A'' under Rule 5 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1973 on the 3rd October, 1973. The Collector Agrarian, Pathankot vide his order dated the 25th June, 1976 declared 12 hectares and 23 units of 1st quality land of the petitioner as surplus. On appeal, the case was remanded by the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur Division, vide his order dated the 8th September, 1977. After remand, the Collector Agrarian, Pathankot held vide his order dated the 31st August, 1978, 7.22 hectares of 1st quality land surplus (besides 25 standard acres 41/2 units already declared surplus vide order dated the 9th March, 1966 under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953). This order was appealed against before the Commissioner, Jullundur Division. The Additional Commissioner, Jullundur Division carried out a spot inspection on the 27th November, 1979 when as mentioned in his successor''s order dated the 30th January, 1981 he found that the land irrigated by Kuhls taking off from Shangarwan river bed was not irrigated during Rabi. His successor vide his order dated the 30th January, 1981 remanded the case for a fresh decision in the light of the entries in the Khasra Girdawaris for Rabi and Kharif, 1970 and the inspection note of his predecessor. After remand, the Collector Agrarian, Pathankot vide his order dated the 30th April, 1982 held that the area is served by perennial sources of irrigation and is capable of giving two crops in the year. He accordingly declared 7.22 hectares of first quality land again as surplus. The appeal against this order was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner Jullundur Division vide his order dated the 20th May, 1983. Hence the present revision petition impugning the order of the Collector dated the 30th April, 1982 and the Additional Commissioner dated the 20th May, 1983.

I have heard the counsel for the parties. A part of the land owned by the landowner is shown in the Khasra Girdawari for 1970 placed in the record of the Collector as ''Nehri Zamindari''. It is admittedly irrigated by a private Kuhl. For valuation of this land, the case would thus be covered by the Note below Schedule ''A'' to Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1973. In the revision petition, the petitioner had argued that rule 12 and Schedule ''A''of these rules are ultra vires of provision of Section 4(2) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. The counsel for the State has referred to the judgment of the Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 1979 PLJ page 279 in which Schedule ''A'' was held to be ''intra vires'' of Section 4 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. This view had been upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court in the case reported in 1982 PLJ page 254. The counsel for the petitioner has not referred to any authority under which this Schedule may have been held to be ultra vires and has not in fact pressed this point during arguments.

In accordance with Note below Schedule`A'' referred to above, in respect of Kuhls the land irrigated is to be ascertained from the Khasra Girdawari record of Rabi, 1970 and Kharif, 1970. If the water drawn from such a source has irrigated some land for both Rabi and Kharif, 1970 it shall be treated as a land of the 1st quality and where such water had irrigated land only for one crop it shall be treated as land having assured irrigated for only one crop. The Collector as well as the Additional Commissioner have held that according to the entries in the Khasra girdawari for 1970 the land in dispute was under assured irrigation capable of yielding at least two crops in a year. This is, however, based on a misreading of the Khasra Girdawari. The Khasra Girdawari entries placed on the record only show that the land is Nehri Zamindari as per entries in the Jamabandi and that crops had been sown thereon both during Rabi and Kharif, 1970. There is, however, no mention in the relevant columns No.6 and 8 of the Khasra Girdawari that the crops had been irrigated. The crop had e.g. been referred merely as ''wheat'' or ''paddy'' and not as ''wheat irrigated'' or ''paddy irrigated''. It cannot, therefore, be presumed from the mere fact that the land has a source of irrigation in a private Kuhl that it had been irrigated both during Kharif and Rabi. It is, of course, correct as observed by the Additional Commissioner in the impugned order that the visit of any officer in the year 1979 (wrongly mentioned as 1977 in the impugned order) cannot lead to disbelieve the entries in the girdawari entered in the year 1970. However, since the Khasra Girdawari entries of 1970 do not themselves state whether the crop in the land in dispute had received irrigation both during Rabi and Kharif, 1970, recourse had to be made to other evidence to determine whether it was receiving irrigation during both crops or only during one crop. The detailed inspection note of the visit of the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur on the 27th November, 1979, relevant portion of which has been produced in para 5 of the order dated the 30th January, 1981 of Additional Commissioner, Jullundur Division show that Kashmir canal and the Chakandar feeder had been constructed mainly for irrigating Jammu areas in the Jammu and Kashmir State and water was allowed to flow into the Punjab Kuhls in case of excess. While the inspection was carried out in November 1979, there is no evidence on the record that the position was materially different in 1970. The certificate produced by the petitioner from the Canal authorities, a copy of which is available at page 7576 of the file, also states that Chakandar feeder taking off from Kashmir Canal is nonperennial and runs from 16th April to 30th September every year. This also tends to show that the water is available in the Kuhl only for irrigation during Kharif. The impugned order dated the 30th April, 1982 refers to the inspection by Shri J.P.S. Puri, Collector, Agrarian, Pathankot. I have not been able to find that inspection note on the file nor has the counsel for the State referred me to that inspection note. I find no mention of the inspection note in the order dated the 25th June, 1976 passed by Shri J.P.S. Puri, Collector Agrarian, Pathankot. The order dated the 31st August, 1978 of Collector Agrarian, Pathankot, however, does mention that "the enquiries made during a general touring of Narot Jaimal Singh area shows the Shangharwan feeder originates from the J & K State and keeps on receiving water in addition to the Kashmir Canal from which probably surplus water flows into it". Thus while the findings of the Additional Commissioner were based on a specific inspection made for this purpose on the 27th November, 1979, the Collector had referred only to his enquiries made during general touring of the area. Even the result of these enquiries mentioned above does not show that the area receives assured irrigation in two crops although the Collector Agrarian has held that "it will be safe to conclude that the water of Singarwan feeds perennially the Kuhls originating from it". The Collector in the impugned order dated the 30th April, 1982 has also mentioned that he had accompanied the Additional Commissioner during inspection and he had come to the conclusion that the area is served by perennial sources of irrigation throughout the year and is capable of giving two crops in the year. He has, however, recorded no detailed reasons in support of his conclusion based on the inspection. The Collector and the Additional Commissioner have based their conclusion mainly on the Khasra Girdawari for the year 1970 which, however, as mentioned above, do not indicate at all whether the crops sown during Kharif and Rabi, 1970 were irrigated or not. Since Khasra Girdawari did not mention this fact, the proper course would have been to refer to the records of the Irrigation Department to determine as to which of the areas of the land in dispute had received irrigation during both the crops and which had received irrigation only during one crop during 1970. It may be mentioned that the Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case reported in 1979 PLJ page 279 (para 11 of the judgment) directed that valuation of the land to be determined in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Rules and the Act and on the basis of irrigation records. The finding that the land in dispute is under assured irrigation capable of yielding at least two crops in the year without such an enquiry is not based on any evidence and cannot, therefore, be sustained.

I accordingly accept the petition, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Collector [(Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)], Pathankot for a fresh decision after taking into account the entries in the records of the Irrigation Department about the area out of land in dispute irrigated by private Kuhls which had received irrigation during both Rabi and Kharif, 1970 and the area which had received irrigation only for one crop. The land which had received irrigation for both Rabi and Kharif, 1970 shall have to be considered as land of the 1st quality and the land which had received irrigation only for one crop during 1970 shall be treated as land having assured irrigation for only one crop in accordance with Note below Schedule ''A'' to Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1973. If no entries regarding irrigation of land in dispute served by these private Kuhls are available in the records of the Irrigation Department the area of the landowner under Nehri Zamindari irrigated from a Kuhl fed by Chakandar Feeder should be treated as land having assured irrigation for only one crop as in the absence of any entries in the record the findings of the Additional Commissioner during inspection in November, 1979 and the certificate from the Canal authorities that Chakandar Feeder from which the land in dispute was irrigated runs only form 16th April to 30th September each year would indicate that the land was under assumed irrigation only for one crop.

The petitioner has been asked to appear before the Collector [(Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)], Pathankot on the 16th April, 1984.

The Collector [Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)], Pathankot should separately check up whether 25 S. As. 41/4 units of landowner''s holding already declared surplus under Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, as mentioned in the order dated the 31st August, 1978 of Collector, Pathankot has been allotted to eligible persons after taking its possession. If not, necessary steps for the same may be taken at any early date in accordance with law.