Yatinder Chand vs The State of Punjab and another

M.M. Punchhi, J.—The undisputed facts are these. The petitioner was a big landowner in the State of Punjab. His holding when computed under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, came to be 16-23.38 hectares. Leaving seven hactares of first quality land as his permissible area, the remaining land was declared surplus by the Collector,-- vide order dated June 30, 1976 (Annexure P. 1), details whereof are coming forth in the order itself. The petitioner moved this court lamenting that a sum of Rs. 34,375 assessed as compenstation due for the surplus area had not been paid to him despite the fact that the land involved had been mutated in the name of the State. The State in its return took the plea that before June 30, 1976, when order, Annexure P. 1 was passed the petitioner had sold his entire declared surplus area for Rs 16,800 and that by his act he was no longer entitled to compensation. It has further been pleaded that mutations which have been sanctioned in favour of the Government were from the names of the vendee to the State. Never-theless, it is categorically stated that the vendees are entitled to get compensation for the lands sold to them.

the petitioner basis his claim solely on the ground that he was the landowner and it was his area which was declared surplus, entitling him to compensation. Stress has been laid on the scheme of the Act to contend that it was intended that landowners be paid the compensation to be determined u/s 10 of the Act. It is noteworthy, however, it is the Collector or the officer authorised by the State Government in that behalf who shall determine the amount to be paid for the land which has vested in the State Government u/s 8. Nowhere in the said section has it been specifically provided that compensation is to be paid to the landowner in whose hands the area was declared surplus. The crub to have more land than the permissible area is not only towards owning it but also towards holding it. It has thus to be seen not only as to who holds the proprietal interest in the land declared surplus as also who has its possessory interest.

At this stage, it would help seeing the definition of the word ''landownor'', which stands engrafted in the provision of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. as is contained in the Punjab Land Revenue Act [see section 2(15) of the former Act for the purpose]. Now section 3(2) of the latter Act provides :

* * * *

(2) "landowner" does not include a tenant or an assignee of land revenue, but does include a person to whom a holding has been transferred, or an estate or holding has been let in farm, under this Act for the recovery of an arrear of land revenue or of a sum recoverable as such an arrear and every other person not herein before in this clause mentioned who is in possession of an estate or any share or portion thereof or in the enjoyment of any part of the profits of an estate;

A Division Bench of this court in Baba Badri Dass v. Shri Dharm and others 1981 P.L.J. 447 to which I was a member drew distinction between the word "landowner" and the expression "owner of land", Terms "owner of land" and "landowner" were held not synonymous. The word "landowner" has a very wide signification and includes many persons whose interests in land are of a limited or ephemeral character. They may not strictly fall within the expression "owner of land". The Punjab Land Reforms Act appeared on the scene to bring a ceiling on land of landowners, as also mortgagees with possesson and even those of tenants. Persons holding partly in one capacity and partly in another, were also brought within the ambit of the provisions. It is for land of such landowners whose area fell beyond the ceiling limit and had been declared surplus that compensation had to be paid. And compensation necessarily had to be paid to those persons who were entitled as landowners and who had been sought to make way for the claims of the State. On this understanding of the matter, it becomes plain that though the holding of the petitioner had to be reckoned for the purpose of computing surplus area as it stood on the appointed date ''January 24, 1971'', compensation had to be paid for the land declared surplus to the person who made way for the State to take it over. Admittedly, on the facts of the present case, the petitioner transferred his area somewher after January 24, 1971, but before June 30, 1976 to a set of vendees who are not parties to these proceedings. The State reckoned the surplus area on the legal fiction that the area kept belonging to the petitioner, ignoring at that stage the transfers. Its claim at the later stage that it would pay compensation to the vendees, in the scheme of things seems to me perfectly justified for it took possession from the vendees and needs to compensate them for the purpose. This is in keeping with the scheme and the provisions of the Act. It is precisely for this purpose as said earlier, that both proprietal and the possessory interests in the land have to be kept in view to work out the scheme of the Art. No fault at all can be found in the stance adopted by the State. The petitioner is not entitled to the compensation.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit whatsoever in this petition. It accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs.