Om Parkash/Surja Ram vs State of Punjab

R.R. Bhardwaj, FC.

These are two revision petitions filed under Section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 directed against the order dated 26.4.1995 passed by Sh. S.C. Aggarwal, Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, whereby he accepted the appeal of Surja Ram, son of Chuni Ram, partly and modified the order dated 17.8.1994 of the Collector (Agrarian), Abohar to the extent that allotment of only 45 Kanals 10 Marlas of land be cancelled and the case was remanded to the Collector for redetermining the same.

The brief facts of the case are that land measuring 72 kanals comprised in Rect. No. 73 killa No. 5(80), 6(80), 15(80), Rect. No. 74 Killa No. 2/1(40), 8/2(517), 9(80), 10(80), 11(80), 18(80), situated in the revenue estate of village Alamgarh, Tehsil Abohar was allotted to Surja Ram, son of Chuni Ram, resident of village Alamgarh, Tehsil Abohar by the Collector (Agrarian), Abohar, vide his order dated 4.9.1985 under the provisions of Punjab Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1973, on the basis of sitting tenant on the said land. Thereafter, one Sh. Rajinder Kumar, son of Amin Chand, lodged a complaint dated 27.7.1994 before the Collector (Agrarian), Abohar, who after examining the complaint and the revenue record, sought permission of Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, for cancellation of the land allotted to Surja Ram. After examining the matter, the Commissioner, vide his order dated 9.8.1994 granted permission to Collector (Agrarian), Abohar to review the allotment order after hearing the parties. After hearing and examining the revenue record regarding the allotment, the Collector vide his order dated 17.8.1994 cancelled the allotment of Surja Ram. Collector further ordered to get the land in favour of State of Punjab for further allotment to the eligible persons. Feeling aggrieved with the above order, allottee (Surja Ram) filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, who after hearing both the parties through their counsel vide his order dated 26.4.1995 accepted the appeal of the allottee partly and modified the cancellation order of the Collector to the extent that allotment of only 45 Kanals 10 Marlas land is cancelled and the remaining 27 Kanals remained intact and the case was remanded to the Collector for redeciding the matter. Against the above order of the Commissioner, Sh. Om Parkash and Sh. Surja Ram have come up with the present revision petitions.

In R.O.R. No. 391 of 199495, the revision petition was already accepted vide order dated 27.11.1995 of this court. Against the said order Sh. Surja Ram, Respondent No. 2 in R.O.R. 391 of 199495 filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 17757 of 1995 in the Hon''ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and vide order dated 14.12.1995, Hon''ble High Court accepted the Writ Petition and remanded the case for fresh decision to this court with the direction that connected R.O.R. No. 594 of 199495 be also heard along with this revision petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner in R.O.R. No. 391 argued that Sh. Surja Ram, Respondent No. 2 was not eligible for the allotment of land on 4.9.1985 under the provisions of Punjab Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1973. He further mentioned that on 4.9.1995 when respondent sought allotment of land, he should not have been the owner of any land in the State of Punjab. In the present case, Sh. Surja Ram was the owner of 45 Kanals 10 Marlas of land which he got from the inheritance of his deceased father vide Mutation No. 1551 of village Alamgarh. The learned counsel further argued that the said mutation was entered on 9.5.1985 and sanctioned on 14.6.1985. He argued that Surja Ram played fraud with the Collector Agrarian, Abohar by suppressing this fact. In any case, Surja Ram cannot be considered as eligible person on the date of allotment and therefore, the Collector had rightly cancelled his entire allotment as he tried to mislead the court by making false averments. The learned counsel further argued that the learned Commissioner had wrongly held that there was no mala fide on the part of Surja Ram and allowed Surja Ram to retain 27 kanals of land. He pointed out the definition of eligible person which is reproduced below :

"Means a major person who has been residing in the State of Punjab for a period of 5 years before the commencement of this Scheme and is primarily engaged in agriculture as his occupation and who :

(i) a tenant or a member of Scheduled Castes or Backward Classes and does not own or hold any land or owns or holds and less than two hectares of the first quality land or its equivalent area; or,

(ii) A landless agricultural worker."

The learned counsel further argued that the object of the Punjab Land Reforms Act has been clearly defined in a judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court as reported in PLJ 1983 page 192 Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, which is reproduced below :

"The object of the Reforms Act is the Agrarian Reforms and to impart security of tenure, to make the tiller the owner and to trim large holdings, setting sobber ceiling to create peasant proprietorship and to ensure even distribution of land."

He also pointed out the judgment of the Apex Court as reported in 1974 PLJ page 74 State of Punjab v. Amar Singh and others, which is reproduced below :

"The triple (object) of the Agrarian Reforms projected by the Act appear to be;

(a) to impart security of tenure,

(b) to make the tiller the owner, and

(c) to trim large holdings, setting sobber village. To convert these political slogans into legal realities, to combat the evil of mass effections, to create peasant proprietorships and to ensure even distribution of land ownerships a statutory scheme was fashioned, the cornerstone of which was the building up of a reservoir of land carved out of the large land holdings and made available for utilisation by the State for resettling ejected tenants."

In view of the above, the order of the Commissioner is liable to be quashed and the order of the Collector is liable to be restored, argued the learned counsel.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner in R.O.R. No. 594 of 199495 argued that the Collector had cancelled the allotment of Surja Ram vide his order dated 17.8.1994 ex parte without affording any opportunity of being heard and without issuing any notice to the petitioner. The learned counsel further argued that the State had never filed any appeal or revision against the order of the Commissioner who had partly accepted the appeal of the petitioner and Sh. Om Parkash has no locus standi to file the revision petition before this court. The counsel further argued that the petitioner in R.O.R. No. 391 of 199495 is neither a tenant on the land nor an aggrieved person. The learned counsel further argued that even Sh. Rajinder Kumar, who had made a complaint to the Collector for the cancellation of the allotment made in favour of Sh. Surja Ram never appeared before the Collector and had never raised any objection earlier. The learned counsel argued that Sh. Om Parkash''s claim on the said land is only on the basis of the order dated 8.11.1994 passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd grade vide which he had ordered for the correction of Khasra Girdawari in favour of the petitioner in R.O.R. No. 391 of 199495 from Kharif, 1990. Further, the Collector while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner had held that Sh. Om Parkash is an unauthorised occupant on the land under dispute and is not a tenant. The appeal against the order of the Collector dated 14.7.1995 is still under consideration of the Commissioner. Further, the learned District & Sessions Judge has granted stay in favour of petitioner for dispossession of petitioner from the land in dispute. The learned counsel further argued that so far as the land measuring 45 Kanals is concerned, the dispute with regard to the same is pending before the Civil Court for the purpose for adjudication and till the matter is decided by the Civil Court, the petitioner is entitled for the allotment of the old land which was allotted on 4.9.1995. The learned counsel further argued that the petitioner in R.O.R. No. 391 of 199495 is not a tenant on land in dispute on the appointed date i.e. 24.1.1971. As has been held by a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, reported in 1988(2) RRR 510 (P&H) : 1989 PLJ Page 541 Bhag Singh v. Financial Commissioner, "the tenant must be a tenant in occupation of land on the appointed date i.e. 24.1.1971 in order to claim tenants permissible area." The learned counsel has also drawn my attention to the definition of eligible person in this regard. The learned counsel further mentioned a few rulings to show that Sh. Om Parkash petitioner in R.O.R. No. 391 of 199495 is not an eligible tenant. He further argued that no civil rights of the petitioner in R.O.R. No. 391 of 199495 have been effected nor any prejudice has been caused to him. The learned counsel further argued that in revisional jurisdiction, this court is only to examine the illegality and irregularity committed by the courts below. The revisional court is not to reassess the evidence appraised by the authorities below.

I have seen the entire record carefully and gone through the arguments by both the counsels. From the record, it is admittedly clear that the petitioner in R.O.R. No. 594 of 199495 by virtue of mutation No. 1551 of village Alamgarh had become the owner of 45 Kanals 10 Marlas of land before the allotment was made to him by Collector on 4.9.1995. The eligibility definition as given by both the counsels clearly shows that in view of this possession of land, he was not, at that time, eligible person. This is a fact that he was eligible on the date when he applied but in all fairness of things, he should have brought this fact to the notice of the Collector before the allotment was made in his favour. The learned counsel for the petitioner in R.O.R. No. 594 of 199495 has not raised any point with regard to this fact and therefore the Collector was right in cancelling the allotment of Sh. Surja Ram, petitioner in R.O.R. No. 594 of 199495. The learned Commissioner, in my opinion, has gone wrong in concluding that there is no mala fide on the part of Sh. Surja Ram. In fact, the mala fide is glaring because Sh. Surja Ram deliberately suppressed the fact of his possessing some land before the allotment was made in his favour. Had the Collector known this, he would have probably allotted the land which was declared as surplus area to some more eligible person as per the definition of eligibility given in the scheme.

I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner in R.O.R. 594 of 1994 95 that Sh. Om Parkash has to prove his eligibility for allotment. I have not gone into this question at this stage because it is for the competent authority to do so. The limited question before me is to see the correctness of the orders passed by the lower court regarding the allotment made in favour of Sh. Surja Ram. Regarding the locus standi of Sh. Om Parkash, I find from the record that Sh. Om Parkash was impleaded as a party in the proceedings before the Commissioner and at that time, Surja Ram was also a aparty in this case had not raised any point to challenge the locus standi of the present petitioner, in R.O.R. No. 391 of 199495. Since Sh. Om Parkash was a party before the Commissioner and it is the Commissioner''s order which is lying before me for scrutiny, I see no reason as to why his locus standi should be challenged at this stage. Moreover, after the correction of Khasra Girdawari as per the orders of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, he has some interest in this land and to that extent he becomes party in the present proceedings.

In view of the above, I set aside the order of the Commissioner and uphold the order of the Collector as per which he had cancelled the allotment made in favour of respondent No. 2 in R.O.R. No. 391 of 199495. The land in question would vest with the State Government and it is for the State Government to allot it to the eligible persons as per the Scheme and provisions of law.

In this manner, the revision petition filed by Sh. Surja Ram, petitioner in R.O.R. No. 594 of 199495 is hereby dismissed.

Announced.