Pokhar vs State of Haryana through the Collector, District Sirsa

Vishnu Bhagwan, FC.

This is a revision petition under section 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 read with section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and section 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 for setting aside the orders dated 24.1.1990 and 14.1.1993 of the Collector, Surplus Area, Dabwali and the Commissioner, Sirsa Division, respectively and for acceptance of the revision petition allowing the land in dispute to be allotted to be petitioners.

Facts of the case are that Kulwant Singh, respondent No. 2 had been owning 122.53 ordinary acres of agricultural land situated in villages Panniwala Mahla, Bhanger Khera and Budhi Gulab Singh, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepore and village Maujgarh, Tehsil Sirsa, District Hisar. This land included 42.21 ordinary acres of evacuee land (hereinafter called the disputed land) situated in village Maujgarh, Tehsil Dabwali allotted to the Respondent No. 2 in 1949 under the East Punjab Displaced Persons (Lands Resettlement) Act, 1949. The Special Collector, Punjab vide his order dated 28.11.1961 leaving 30 standard acres i.e. 30.43 ordinary aces as permissible area of the respondent No. 2 declared 48.14 standard acres (i.e. 92.10 ordinary acres) as surplus. The surplus declared land included the disputed land. Thereafter in a review petition the Special Collector, Punjab vide his order dated 15.3.1962 in case No. 172 (Ferozepur) took out the disputed land of the surplus pool on the ground that its proprietary rights had not by then been given to the respondent No. 2. On the other hand the disputed land was allotted in 1965 66 to Pokhar, Sohni, Arjun, Hazara etc. present petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 and the respondent No. 3 in accordance with the surplus case order dated 28.11.1961; litigation between the landowners and the tenants then continued in different courts. The Collector Dabwali (SDO Civil) as Appellate Authority decided vide order dated 24.7.1979 that since the land being surplus had vested in the State, the respondent No. 2 was not eligible for getting Batai from the petitioners and respondent No. 3. Then the respondent Kulwant Singh filed a Civil suit which was dismissed on 28.2.1986 but in an appeal against it the Additional District and Session Judge, Sirsa vide his order dated 14.10.1986 set aside the lower civil court order holding that the respondent was owner of the disputed land till it was not declared as surplus by the competent authority. State was also implead as party. The tenant petitioners then filed an appeal before the High Court who dismissed the same vide order dated 2.6.1987. Thereafter the tenants moved an application dated 6.5.1988 before the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)cumCollector, Surplus Area, Dabwali under section 5(c) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 for conferment of proprietary rights upon them treating them `B'' category tenants as the disputed land had been declared surplus vide order dated 28.11.1961 and vested in the State w.e.f. 24.1.1971 under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972; and had been allotted to them being ejected tenants. The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)cumCollector, Surplus Area, Dabwali heard the parties and concluded that the respondent No. 2 was entitled to keep in his possession 60 ordinary acres of land situated in Haryana State, under the old Act; whereas he owned only 42.21 ordinary acres of land in the State. Accordingly the Collector (S.A.) vide his order dated 24.1.1990 declared the respondent No. 2 as small landowner subject to the condition that the land exceeding 60 ordinary acres if found in his possession, would be treated as surplus area. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners Pokhar etc. filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Hisar Division for setting aside the order dated 24.1.1990 of the Collector (S.A.), Dabwali and allowing proprietary rights of the disputed land in their favour on the grounds that the respondent No. 2 owned 92.10 ordinary acres of land on 15.4.1993 in excess of his permissible area, which were rightly declared surplus vide order dated 28.11.1961 of the Special Collector; that proprietary rights in respect of 42.21 ordinary acres of evacuee land allotted to him in 1949 had also been granted to the respondent No. w.e.f. 14.8.1962 by the Assistant RegistrarcumM.O. Rehabilitation Department which resulted in that 42.21 ordinary acres (the disputed land) became surplus since 14.8.1962 with the respondent No. 2 in accordance with section 2(5) (a) of the Punjab Law (excess of permissible area in surplus). The Commissioner finding the respondent No. 2 not holding more the than 42.21 ordinary acres of land in the State of Haryana, dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 14.1.1993. The petitioner then filed the present revision petition before me.

The counsel for the petitioners contends that the Special Collector, Punjab vide his order dated 28.11.1961 had rightly declared surplus 92.10 ordinary acres of land including the disputed land measuring 42.21 ordinary acres out of total land measuring 122.53 ordinary acres with the respondent No. 2. The Special Collector allowed the review application of the respondent No. 2 vide his order dated 15.3.1962 on the grounds that the respondent No. 2 had not got the proprietary rights in respect of the disputed land in village Maujgarh (now in Haryana) which had actually been granted in 14.8.1962 by the Rehabilitation Department and the disputed land had been allotted to the petitioner on 3.6.1965 possession of which was delivered to them on 10.6.1965. The petitioners counsel further states that the petitionerallotted moved an application dated 6.5.1988 praying for grant of proprietary rights in respect of the disputed land which was rejected by the Collector (SA) on 24.1.1996 and also declared the respondent No. 2 (Kulwant Singh) as small landowner. The counsel further pleads that petitioner Pokhar was allotted 68 kanal 19 marlas of land; Soni, 42 kanal and 4 marlas and Hazara, 128 kanals of land, who were all given possession thereof and the allotments has never been challenged. Further the petitioners counsel refers to section 19A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 stating that when once surplus area case of landowner is determined, any land acquisition thereafter by such landowner shall be treated as surplus area and the division of the erstwhile State of Punjab in 1966 will not affect the status of the landowner. The petitioners counsel referred to 1971 PLJ 315 (Full Bench Punjab and Haryana High Court) and 1979 PLJ 599 (HC) case in support of his contention that the area in respect of which the respondent No. 2 had got the proprietary rights should remain surplus even after the reorganization of the erstwhile State of Punjab in 1966. Further relying upon judgment reported as 1972 PLJ 738 the petitioners counsel argued that the revenue officers could not change the status of the landowner when the petitionertenants went to the court for proprietary rights.

The Deputy District Attorney appearing on behalf of the State respondent No. 1 states that he does not have any ground to differ from the counsel of the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 could not refute the well reasoned above mentioned arguments of the petitioners counsel.

After hearing the arguments of the counsels of both the parties and going through the record, I find that the respondent No. 2 who had been owning 122.53 ordinary acres of land including the disputed land measuring 42.21 ordinary acres (proprietary rights of which having been granted on 14.8.1962), was not a small landowner and his status had been determined while declaring his area as surplus vide order dated 28.11.1961 by the then Special Collector. Even if the disputed land is treated to have been acquired thereafter by way of proprietary rights conferred on him on 14.8.1962, it remains surplus also by operation of section 19A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The Collector and Commissioner have erred in considering the land holdings of the Landlord only in Haryana for determining his status. In fact his position was already determined in November, 1961 under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and the division of the erstwhile State into Punjab and Haryana would not affect his status as big Landlord as well as the area determined as surplus at that time. Accordingly, the revision petition is accepted, proprietary rights be conferred upon the petitioners. I hereby set aside the impugned orders of the Collector dated 24.1.1990 and that of the Commissioner dated 14.1.1993 and allow the petitioners application dated 6.5.1988.

Announced.