Gurdit Singh vs Ram Devi

K.S. Narang, F.C.

This is a reference dated 30.9.1981 by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, recommending for the setting aside of the orders of the Collector

and Assistant Collector in the case of ejectment sought by the respondent landowner against the petitionertenant on the ground of being a small

landowner.

Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Ram Devi (landowner) filed an application on Form K1 under Section 9(1)(i) of the Punjab Security of

Land Tenures Act, before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Fazilka, seeking ejectment of Gurdit Singh (tenant) from the land measuring 30

Kanals 3 Marlas situated in village Chak Sarian, Tehsil Fazilka on the ground that she was a small landowner and required the land for her

selfcultivation. While appearing before the Assistant Collector, Gurdit Singh inter alia took the plea that as the application had not been signed by

Smt. Ram Devi, the same was liable to be rejected. He also claimed compensation to the extent of Rs. 10,000/ for bringing improvements on land in dispute, which had remained in his cultivating possession for the last 60 years. The Assistant Collector after hearing the parties ordered the ejectment of the tenant by his order dated 8.9.1979. Against this order, Gurdit Singh filed an appeal before the Collector, Ferozepur, who also rejected it by his order dated 12.2.1980. Aggrieved Gurdit Singh went in revision before the Commissioner, Ferozepur, with the prayer that recommendation may be made to the Financial Commissioner to set aside the impugned orders. The Commissioner has accordingly made this reference to the Financial Commissioner for interference for setting aside the impugned orders of lower courts.

I have heard the counsel for the parties, Shri Chopra, Advocate, has supported the reference, while Shri Aggarwal, Advocate has opposed it.

The Assistant Collector ordered the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that Smt.Ram Devi was a small landowner and even if 2 Marlas of land alleged to have been left by her in Form `K'' would not make her a big landowner. On the point of compensation, he rejected the claim of tenant because he did not produce any receipt or proof in respect of any expenditure incurred by him. He also found that the tenant was holding 4.98.28

Ist quality hectores of land and observed that on that account the tenant was not eligible for accommodation on any surplus land. By his order dated 28.9.1979 he, therefore, ordered the ejectment of the tenant between 15th May and 15th June of any agricultural year. Against this the petitionertenant went in appeal and revision before the Collector and Commissioner, respectively pressing the points, inter alia that the application of the landowner in Form `K'' was defective as it was not signed by her and she had not disclosed her own holding and the holding of the other members of her family individually or jointly as expressly required under section 4(4)(b) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. The Collector dismissed the appeal of the tenant but the Commissioner has made this reference on the point of status of the landowner to go into the question whether Smt. Ram Devi was a small landowner or not. On the basis of the arguments led by the respective counsel before him, the Commissioner has observed and recommended as under :

Shri G.L. Punchhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that it was incumbent upon the learned Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Fazilka and the Collector, Ferozepur to have seen whether Smt. Ram Devi is a small landowner in the light of section 4(b) of the Punjab Land Reforms

Act, 1972. The contention of the learned counsel is that it was not enough for the learned Assistant Collector, Ist Grade Fazilka and the learned

Collector, Ferozepur to see whether she in her individual capacity, was a small landowner or not. They ought to have seen whether her husband or any major male member held any land. Under the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, the status of family is to be seen. Continuing his arguments the learned counsel added that it was necessary for Smt. Ram Devi to have mentioned in the remarks column of Form K1, whether her husband was alive; whether he possessed any land, whether she had any male adult members in her family and if so, whether they possessed any land. All these questions are germane to the determination of the petitioner as small landowner. This legal requirement having not been complied with the entire proceedings according to the learned counsel, stand vitiated and calls for the exercise of revisionary powers.

Shri J.R. Goklaney, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent has also been heard. He has sought to rebut the argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner by saying that the statement of Smt. Ram Devi coupled with the entries in the revenue record are sufficient to determine and establish her status as small landowner. It has also been contended that if the petitioner has any doubt regarding the status of Smt. Ram Devi as small landowner the same could be raised by way of crossexamination. The learned counsel also put in an affidavit from Smt. Ram Devi, stating therein that she is a widow without any issue. Hence, there can be no doubt with regard to her status as small landowner.

I have considered the contentions of both the parties and have applied my mind carefully. Keeping in view the entire record of the proceedings, it is clear that the mandatory provisions of section 4(b) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, have not been consciously and adequately adhered to.

It was incumbent upon the learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Fazilka to give a positive finding with regard to the status of Smt. Ram Devi,

keeping in view the definition of the family. The mere fact that no crossexamination was made by the petitioner does not take away the legal obligation cast on the respondent to positively establish her status as small landowner by disclosing the details, if any, of the holding in possession of the family. In case, the applicantrespondent had done so, it was for the learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Fazilka to have taken care of this factum and have been given a positive finding. Since this has not been done, I am of the clear opinion that the statutory requirements of law have not been honoured and this has the effect of vitiating the proceedings. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in recommending the present revision petition to the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab in the exercise of this revisional jurisdiction and also for setting aside the

impugned orders.

Shri Chopra, counsel for the petitionertenant in support of the reference has cited 1975 P.L.J. 29 Re: Prithu and another v. The Financial

Commissioner, Punjab and others, in which it was held as under :

Under section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, a very heavy burden lies upon the landlord who wants to eject a tenant to prove that he is a small landowner. Where the landlord not only failed to verify his application in Form K1 but also did not disclose in that form the total land possessed by him, in such a situation, the only course open to the domestic tribunal was to nonsuit him.

Shri Chopra has stressed the point that the Assistant Collector could not order the ejectment of the tenant unless he came to a clear and definite conclusion that the status of Smt. Ram Devi landowner was that of a small landowner. He has further pointed that the Assistant Collector had taken the view that if the landowner has failed to disclose 2 marlas of land in her application, it did not make her big landowner.

Shri P.N. Aggarwal, counsel for the landowner, has vehemently opposed the above contention and has maintained that the holding of the

landowner had been indicated in the relevant jamabandi and khasra girdawaris duly exhibited and that the tenant had failed to rebut these documents and as such the reference deserved to be rejected.

After hearing the parties and looking into the record I feel that the question of status of Smt. Ram Devi (landowner) has not been gone into

properly in accordance with the mandatory provisions, contained under sections 4(4)(b) of the Act, 1972, ibid which reads as under :

Where a person is a member of a family, the land held by such person together with the land held by every other member of the family, whether individually or jointly shall be taken into account for determining the permissible area.

For the reasons given above, the reference is accepted orders, dated 12.2.1980 and 28.9.1979 of the Collector, Ferozepur and Assistant

Collector Ist Grade, Fazilka respectively, are set aside, only to the extent that the Assistant Collector will go into the question again only for determining the status of landowner whether she is a small landowner taking also into account her own holding and holding of all other members of her family, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, ibid.

To be communicated.

Reference accepted. Case remanded.