Surain Singh vs Piaro

Amrik Singh Pooni, IAS.

This is a reference from the Commissioner Ferozepur Division recommending setting aside of the order dated 12.6.1986 of Collector (ADC Ferozepur) and of order dated 10.3.1986 of ACI Fazilka vide which Surain Singh was ejected from land measuring 33 Kanals 8 Marla situated in Vill. Ojhan Wali for failure to pay rent for crops kharif 1978 to kharif, 1983 regularly without sufficient cause, on an application in form `L'' filed by Smt. Piaro etc. The Commissioner has pointed out that these orders are bad in law as the proceedings in form `L'' could not be initiated through a general attorney as this was violative of the Punjab Government Notification No. 728 dated 1.11.1987.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Sh. S.C. Chhabra, learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the application in form `L'' was filed on behalf of Smt. Piaro etc. by one Kashmir Singh who claimed to be their general attorney. Kashmir Singh, did not produce the original MukhtiarNama and instead placed on record only a photostat copy of the said document which was not exhibited and is, therefore, not admissible in evidence. The learned counsel contends further that Jaswant Singhrespondent No. 3 was not properly represented as there was no Muktiarnama from his side. The learned counsel has also pointed out that Kashmir Singh as Mukhtiariam, was also not competent to file the application for ejectment as the respondent landowners were residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector Ist grade and they are debarred from initiating proceedings through general attorney in terms of subsection (2) of the Punjab Government Notification No. 728 dated 1.11.1987 issued under Section 86(2) of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The recommendation of the Commissioner is, therefore, required to be accepted. Sh. Sandeep Punchhi, counsel for the respondent contends, on the other hand, that proceedings under Section 14A(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act are summary proceedings before a revenue officer in which a summary procedure is required to be followed. He has drawn my attention to the ruling 1980 PLJ page 332 in which it has been held that ejectment applications can be verified by one of the landowners and that a recognised agent like a general attorney, properly authorised, is fully competent to file and pursue on ejectment application. The learned counsel has contended that the placement of the photostat copy of the power of attorney was not challenged at any stage in the original proceedings. Further the ejectment application was duly signed by Smt. Piaro and was, therefore, in accordance with law. The learned counsel has, in this connection placed reliance on the ruling 1985 PLJ 27.

I have considered the pleas of the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The crucial point for decision in the case is as to whether Kashmir Singh as general attorney of Smt. Piaro and Smt. Naino daughters of Jagat Singh, could initiate proceedings in form `L'' and pursue the same. I fully agree with the case law laid down in 1980 PLJ page 332 which holds that an ejectment application can be filed and pursued by a recognised agent like a general attorney. Further as laid down in 1985 PLJ 27 an application in form `L'' which is signed by a general attorney of a landowner is also competent. However, in my considered opinion both these rulings are of no effect in so far as the circumstances of the present case are concerned. The reference made by the learned Commissioner Ferozepur does not question at all, the case law laid down in the above two rulings. All it points out is that as per the notification dated 1.11.1987 only such persons shall be recognised agents as are representing parties which are not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court. In the present case, the main argument urged against the reference is that proceedings before the revenue officers are necessarily summary proceedings for which no specific procedure is prescribed. I do not agree with this argument. Proceedings in ejectment cases under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act read with the Punjab Land Reforms Act are governed by rule 21 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1973. This rule lays down that in such proceedings the Collector or any other officers shall observe the procedure prescribed for the revenue officers under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and the rules thereunder. Section 86 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 which lays down this procedure is as under :

86(1) Appearances before a Revenue Officer as such, and applications to the acts to be done before him, under this Act may be made or done;

(a) by the parties themselves, or

(b) their recognised agents or a legal practitioner;

Provided that the employment of a recognised agent or legal practitioner shall not excuse the personal attendance is specially required by an order of the officer.

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), recognised agents shall be persons as the State Government may by notification declare in this behalf.

(c) The fees of a legal practitioner shall not be allowed as costs in any proceeding before a Revenue Officer under this Act unless that officer considers, for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, that the fees should be allowed.

Note :

This applies to proceedings before Revenue Officers only and not before Revenue Courts.

Punjab Government Notification No. 728 dated 1.11.1987 has been issued under the provisions of Section 86 subsection (2) and this Notification lay down that the following persons shall be recognised agents for the purpose of section 86(1) of the Act, viz. i.e. (a) persons holdings a General Power of Attorney from parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court within which limits the appearance application or act is made or done, authorising them to make and do such appearance applications and acts on behalf of such parties.

(b) Mukhtiars duly certified a under any law for the time being in force and holding special power of attorney authoring them to do, on behalf of their principals, such acts as may legally be done by Mukhtirs.

It would be seen that in the present case both the parties reside within the territorial jurisdiction of AC Ist grade Fazilka. As such the proceedings could not be initiated through a general attorney. The impugned orders of the AC I and the Collector are therefore, not sustainable. The revision petition is accepted and the impugned orders are quashed.