Sahi Ram vs State of Punjab and anr.

H.S. Bedi, J.

The present writ petition has been directed against the order Annexures P2 and P4, whereby some area belonging to the landowners has been declared surplus. The facts giving rise to the petition are that the surplus area case of petitioner No. 1 was determined by the Collector vide order dated 9th of November, 1976, copy Annexure P1 to the petition. The total holding of the landowner was determined at 18.7496 hectares. After giving 7 hectares as permissible area of the landowner and an identical area as the permissible area of the adult son as also giving the benefit of some tenant''s permissible area, land measuring 2.3624 hectares of first quality land was declared surplus. Aggrieved by the order of Annexure P.1, petitioner No. 1 filed an appeal before the Commissioner and pleaded that the tenant''s permissible area had not been correctly determined and that one separate unit of 7 hectares for another son Lekh Ram, by name, who was an adult on the appointed day was also required to be given. Before the Commissioner, the petitioner allegedly produced a certificate issued by a Board of three doctors of Civil Hospital, Sri Ganganagar, in order to prove that Lekh Ram was an adult on the appointed day. The case was remanded by the Commissioner to the Collector for redecision, but the Collector vide order dated 17th of June, 1983 Annexure P2 to the petition had declared 1.96.38 hectares of first quality land as surplus. The petitioners thereafter again fled an appeal before the Commissioner and urged the same arguments that had been taken before him at the earlier stage. The Commissioner, however, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 31st of July, 1986, Annexure P3 to the petition. The revision petition filed against the order Annexure P3 was therafter dismissed by the financial Commissioner vide order dated 24th November, 1987, copy Annexure P4 to the petition. As already mentioned above, annexures P2 to P4 have been impugned by way of this writ petition.

The challenge in the writ petition as also at the stage of arguments is that the authorities below did not take into account the various facts which went on to show that on the appointed day i.e. 24.1.71 Lekh Ram was an adult son of petitioner No. 1 and, as such was entitled to have his share of 7 hectares of first quality land as per the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. It has also been urged that the tenant''s permissible area which was required to be excluded before finalising the surplus area case of petitioner No. 1, had not been correctly determined as there were a number of tenants on the land and this aspect too had been noticed by the authorities below.

Replies have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 i.e. the Special Collector, Agrarian, Ferozepur District, and also by respondent No. 2, who is said to be an allottee of the land which had been declared surplus. It has been asserted by respondent No. 2 that 81 Kanals 5 Marlas of land out of the area declared surplus had been allotted to him and the remaining surplus area had been allotted to four other tenants. It has also been stated that he had been given actual physical possession of the part of the land and symbolic possession of the remainder. It has further been averred by both the respondents that Lekh Ram was a minor on the appointed day and this aspect too had been fully considered by the authorities below. It has also been urged that the tenant''s permissible area had been correctly determined as there was only one tenant, namely, Net Ram in possession on the appointed day.

I have considered the arguments raised by the counsel for the parties. It would be seen that at the time when the order Annexure P1 was passed, no proof had been furnished by petitioner No. 1 or by Lekh Ram himself (though he was present in Court) which could show that he was an adult on the appointed day. When the matter was taken up by the Special Collector after remand, yet again no evidence was produced with regard to the date of birth of Lekh Ram. The Commissioner while recording the order Annexure P3 found once again that there was no proof of the date of birth of Lekh Ram on the file. Before the Financial Commissioner, however, the petitioners sought to produce some additional evidence in the shape of certificate showing the date of marriage of Lekh Ram as 16th February, 1970 and the voters list of 1984 showing Lekh Ram as being 33 years of age. The learned Financial Commissioner, however, found that the date of marriage could not prove the date of birth of Lekh Ram and the voters list obviously was an afterthought and was thus required to be ignored. The learned Financial Commissioner also relied on a certificate produced from the Govt. Primary School, Daulatpura by Hari Chand respondent No. 2, which showed Lekh Ram''s date of birth as 24th October, 1956, which did not confer adulthood on him on the appointed day. After considering the arguments, I am of the view that on the facts as pleaded and proved, it is difficult to take an opinion different from the one taken by the authorities below. The matter with regard to the date of birth of Lekh Ram has been gone into on a number of occasions and the findings have been found against him. The evidence sought to be produced before the Financial Commissioner has obviously been created later as it was not produced before the Collector or the Commissioner and as such I find no reason whatsoever to disagree with the findings of the authorities below.

Mr. Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioners, has then urged that the tenant''s permissible area has not been correctly determined and for this assertion, he has relied on the averments made in grounds (iv) of para 5 of the petition. He has urged that there were a number of tenants, namely, Duli Chand, Birbal, Sudagar Ram, Huzur Singh, Ganesha, Net Ram, Bhagwan, Surja and Jassa Ram etc. and they had been on land from the years 196667 onwards till 1976. He has also drawn my attention to the reply filed by the respondents to this assertion. The stand of respondent No. 1 is that the contents of subpara (iv) are not admitted as the case was decided on merits by the lower Courts after giving full weightage to the evidence produced by the petitioners. Respondent No. 2 has also given an evasive reply and has stated that there were no other tenants on the land of the petitioners on the appointed day, except Net Ram, who had been allowed his tenant''s permissible area. It is, therefore, apparent to me that this aspect of the matter has not been adequately dealt with by the authorities and the assertions made in the writ petition have not been emphatically denied. I am, therefore, of the view that as far as determination of the tenant''s permissible area is concerned, the matter needs to be gone into once again. The petitioner is allowed on the limited ground mentioned above, and the order Annexures P2 and P4 are accordingly quashed. A direction is issued to the Collector having jurisdiction in the matter to redetermine the tenant''s permissible area and thereafter reassess the surplus area in the hands of the landowner. The parties are directed to appear before the Collector concerned on 10th March, 1992. There will be however no order as to costs.