Kesar Singh vs State & Ors.

Petition claims to be the owner of land measuring 32 kanals under Survey No. 126/37, situated in village Rajinani, tehsil Kathua. It appears that

this land was in excess of the optimum ceilling fixed under the Agrarian Reforms Act and accordingly was encheated to the State vide mutation No.

73 of 1976 by the Tehsildar concerned. This order was assailed by respondent No. 3 in an appeal before the Agrarian Reforms Commissioner

taking the plea that he was the tenant of the Land and was entitled to be declared the prospective owner. His appeal was rejected by order dated

01011983 on the ground that the owner of the land (petitioner herein) had not testified this at the time, mutation was arrested.

Respondant 3, 4 and 5 thereafter filed a revision petition before the Revenue Minister which was dismissed by order dated 15061985. But while

doing so, the Minister ordered recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,10,000 allegedly paid by respondent No. 3 to petitioner herein as arrears of land

revenue and also imposed a fine of Rs. 5000 each on both of the parties u/s 37 of the Act for being recovered as arrears of land revenue and

further directed recovery of the possession of land in question to be put on superdnama of ""some reasonable poor person"".

Petitioner is aggrieved of the direction given by the Revenue Minister seeking to recover Rs. 1,10,000 allegedly paid by respondent No.3 to

petitioner and the penalty of Rs. 5000 imposed on him. His case in short is that the Revenue Minister did not enjoy or possess any power under

the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act to order recovery of any money in a private transaction between the parties or to impose any fine for

allegedly furnishing false information with a view to recover these as arrears of land revenue

Petitioner's counsel, Mr. Thakur has in this regard reffered to Sec. 14 which prescribed the optimum limit of the land to be retained by a person,

Section 21(2) which confers the power of revision on the Revenue Minister, Section 30 which relates to recovery of an amount as arrears of land

revenue which is wrongly or in excess paid to any person under the Act, Section 34 which refers to recovery of costs and fine imposed and lastly,

Section 37 which invokes to impose fine on the parties for allegedly furnishing false information. He has additionally referredto Rule 5 of the

Agrarian Reform Act 1977 which pertains to filing of the return and furnishing information there of by the owners and tenants of the land. His total

case is that the Revenue Minister had wrongly exercised the power u/s 37 to impose fine on the petitioner and had invoked no provision of the Act

to order recovery from him of an admitted private transaction viz. the money paid by respondent No. 3 allegedly to the petitioner. The fate of the

matter primarly hinges on the provisions of sec. 14 read with R.5, Section 21(2) and Section 37. There is no dispute that Sec. 14 prescribes the

optimum ceiling of land to be retained by an owner or the tenent. R. 5 framed under this section envisages the filing of return and furnishing of

information regarding the land possessed so that it can be ascertained whether it is in excess of the ceiling prescribed.

Section 21 (2) confers power of revision on the Minister and Sec. 37 provides for a penalty for failure to furnish a false return or information. Both

these provisions require to be extracted for proper appreciation of the issue involved

Section 21(2)

The Revenue Minister may at any time call for the record of any case in which a Tehsildar or an Assistant Commissioner has passed orders in

respect of any evacuees land or State land or of any case which Commissioner has passed final order and if he finds a question of law or public

interest is involved in the case, he may pass such orders thereon as he thinks fit. Provided that no order shall be passed against any party without

affording that party an opportunity of being heard..

Section 37

If any person, who is under an obligation to furnish any return or information by or under this Act, refuses or, except for reasons beyond his

control, fails to furnish the return or information within the prescribed time, or furnishes any return or information which he knows or has reason to

believe to be false, he shall be punished by a Revenue Officer with fine which may extent to five thousand rupees.

A plain reading of Sec. 21 (2) shows that the Revenue Minister can call for the record of any case in which Commissioner has passed a final order

and pass any order he thinks to be fit, if he finds that a question of law or public interest is involved. The provision in other words contemplates that

the Minister can exercise his revisionary power in a case which raises a question of law or of public interest. It does not confer any power on

the.Minister to order recovery of any amount under or outside the Act, paid by an owner to the tenant or viceeversa as arrears of land revenue.

Nor does Sec. 37 say so This provision also relates to the failure to furnish the return or information by a person who is under an obligation to

furnish. As already noticed, the filing of return and furnishing of information by the owner and the tenant is also additionally provided for by the

provisions of Sec. 14 and R.5 of the Rules. Therefore, it seems that under section 37, a fine can be imposed by a Revenue Officer and not the

Minister for faliure of a person to furnish the return or information under the Act. Even if the expression ""information"" is overstretched to include

any information in a proceeding under the Act, still it is the Revenue Officer alone who is competent to impose a fine under Sec. 37 which stands

specifically invoked by the Revenue Minister in this case to impose fine of Rs. 5,000 each on the parties and its recovery as arrears of land revenue

for allegedly furnishing wrong information to defeat provisions of the Act. Consequently, it leaves no doubt that the Minister was not competent to

do so under this provision.

In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Revenue Minister cannot sustain and must be held as glaringly incompetent. This petition

accordingly succeeds to that extent and is allowed. This does not, however, reflect on the upholding of mutation No. 73/76 by the Minister for the

present case.