Gurbachan Singh vs State

B.B. Mahajan, F.C

This revision petition under Section 18 of the Punjab Reforms Act, is directed against the order dated the 15th June, 1983, of the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Jullundur, whereby he rejected the appeal of Gurbachan Singh.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that an area of 0.68 hectares of land of Shri Hardyal Singh was declared surplus on the 31st December, 1976 and the Collector directed the Tehsildar, Ajnala to take suitable steps for taking possession of the area and for allotment of this area to eligible persons. The land was ultimately allotted by the Collector to Chanchal Singh respondent No. 3, on the 9th February, 1981. Aggrieved by this allotment, Gurbachan Singh filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Jullundur on the ground that he had been cultivating the land for the last 15 years and that he was a sitting tenant on the land and was eligible for allotment on priority basis. After hearing the parties and going through the record, the Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 15th June, 1983 rejected the appeal, which order has now been impugned by way of the revision petition before me.

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He has urged that the petitioner had been a tenant on the land since before the 21st January, 1971 and, therefore, had a preferential right to the allotment of the land in dispute under proviso to para 6(c) of the Punjab Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme, 1973. The learned Additional Commissioner in the impugned order has pointed out that the petitioner had produced before him copies of Khasra Girdawari to indicate that he was in cultivating possession of the land in dispute since Rabi 1977. He, therefore, held that the tenancy had been created after the land had been declared surplus vide Collector''s order dated the 31st December, 1976. The counsel for the petitioner could not refer to any evidence in support of the assertion that the petitioner was cultivating the land since before the 24th January, 1971. He has argued that even if it were held that the petitioner was tenant since Rabi 1977, he still would have preferential right under proviso to para 6(c) of the Scheme as the proviso provides for this priority in respect of a tenant cultivating surplus area and does not restrict it to the tenant who has been cultivating the surplus area since prior to the appointed day. This contention, however, has no force. The whole scheme of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 is to utilise the surplus area of a big landowner by allotment amongst eligible persons. It was never the intention of the legislation that after allowing the landowner to select this permissible area he should be further allowed to choose his own man as tenant who will then have to be allotted the surplus area. Such an interpretation would completely nullify the purpose of the Act. Preference to a tenant cultivating the surplus area in the matter of allotment of that area allowed in the proviso to para 6(c) of the Scheme is thus clearly intended to be available only to a tenant who was cultivating the surplus area on the appointed day viz. the 24th January, 1971 and not to one who may be inducted as tenant after that day, and more particularly after determination of surplus area. It may be mentioned in this context that under Section 7(4)(ii) of Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 a tenancy created on or after the appointed day in any land which has been or could have been declared as surplus area has to be ignored. While this provision specifically ignores tenancy created after the appointed day for the purpose of determinating the surplus area of any person, the intention of the legislation underlying this provision needs to be applied to interpretation of the proviso to para 6(c) of the Scheme and such tenancies are, therefore, to be ignored for the purpose of allotment of surplus area as well. There is thus no merit in the revision. The same is accordingly rejected in limine.

Announced.