Satpal and ors. vs Financial Commissioner and ors.

D.V. Sehgal, J.

The petitioners pray for quashing the orders Annexure P1 to P4 invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Ramu, respondent No. 5, claiming himself to be a tenant on the land of the petitioner, measuring 145 Kanals 10 Marlas in village Bhagar, Tehsil Sirsa for a period exceeding 6 years, made an application to respondent No. 4 for purchase of the same under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (for short the Act). The application was allowed by respondent No. 4 vide order dated 29.8.1972 Annexure P1for purchase of 138 Kanals 15 Marlas of land as the remaining land was held to be included in the reserved area of the landowners. He proceeded to assess the value of the same under subsection (2) of Section 18 of the Act at Rs. 15,209/45 paise. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Collector, respondent No. 3, who modified the order of respondent No. 4, to the extent that instead of treating 46 Kanals, 15 Marlas out of the land as Nehri, he treated 72 Kanals of the land as such, and the remaining land as Barani and assessed the value accordingly vide his order dated 9.1.1973 Annexure P2. The petitioners were still aggrieved by the order of the Collector aforesaid and they preferred a revision petition before the Commissioner, Hissar Division, Hissar, respondent No. 2. Their case was that the entire land which is the subject matter of purchase was Nehri and value of the land as Nehri could not, therefore, be confined to 72 Kanals of land only, but their petition failed and the same was dismissed by respondent No.2, vide order dated 27.8.1973, Annexure P3. They then preferred a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, but the same has also been dismissed. Notices of this petition were duly served on the respondents, but no one has appeared on their behalf. As such, the writ petition is being decided exparte.

Shri Ram Rang, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that it has not been disputed before the authorities below that the entire area of the land, measuring 138 Kanals, 15 Marlas which respondent No. 5 has been allowed to purchase, falls within the command area of canal irrigation. In fact, different portions of the land were being irrigated by canal water for different crops from time to time. A copy of he Warabandi prepared by the Canal Authorities was produced by respondent No. 4. He states that the only source of irrigation for the land is canal water. The mere fact that in the Khasra Girdwari for the year 1971 only 72 Kanals of land was shown as Nehri, could not be the criteria for determining the nature of the land.

I find force in this contention. To determine the value of the land under Subsection (2) of Section 18 of the Act, the Assistant Collector is required to inspect the spot in the company of the parties and take evidence. Whether or not the land is capable of being irrigated by canal water when it falls within the command area of canal irrigation. There is no reason the treat it as Barani. Revenue record showing the land as Barani cannot be taken as the sole guide for assessment of the value of the land the aforesaid provisions.

I, therefore, allow this writ petition; quash the orders Annexures P1 to P4 and direct respondent No. 4 to inspect the land in dispute at the spot and determine on the basis of the evidence, whether or not the whole of the land was Nehri and then to proceed to assess its value under Subsection (2) of Section 18 of the Act. Since there is no representation on behalf of the respondents, I choose not pass any order as to costs.