Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1243 (PNJ)

Mukhtiar Singh v. Narinder Singh

2001-11-06

BHAGAT SINGH

body2001
ORDER Bhagat Singh, FC. - This revision petition under Section 15 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 is directed against the order dated 6.2.2001, passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. 2. The brief facts of this case are that Tehsildar (Sales) Ajnala, leased out the land measuring 59 kanals 14 marlas bearing khasra No. 1/25, 2/12, 12/7, 15, 25, 16/24, 18/5, 25/4,5,6 situated in village Jaffarkot, Tehsil Ajnala to Mukhtiar Singh-petitioner being fauji allottee for 10 years for making the land cultivable. Possession was delivered to him vide report No. 417 dated 27.8.1964. The petitioner, after taking symbolic possession, left the place giving the land to Boor Singh, father of the respondent for cultivation. Narinder Singh son of Boor Singh, resident of same village got the disputed land measuring 31 kanals 4 marlas re-allloted in his name from Naib Tehsilar (Sales) Ajnala vide his order dated 29.1.1999 and conveyance deed was got issued on 5.5.1999. Mukhtiar Singh filed a petition under Section 10 of the said Act for cancellation of this sale before the Chief Sales Commissioner, Amritsar who, vide his order dated 5.4.2000, accepted the petition and remanded the case to S.D.M., Ajnala for considering the case of giving permanent right to the petitioner and to recover the amount, if any, due from him according to terms and conditions of the policy framed by Punjab Government. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent filed a petition before the Commissioner, who accepted the same finding no proof to the effect that the first allottee cultivated the land or took care of this land whereas the respondent spent time, money, energy to make it cultivable for the last 20 years. To save his land, the respondent even had to file a civil suit (No. 130 of 1982) for permanent injunction which was decree in his favour. As per the said judgment dated 1.12.1983, Mukhtiar Singh gave land to the respondent for cultivation instead of cultivating the same himself. Therefore, the revision petition of the respondent was accepted and order of the Chief Sales Commissioner was set aside by the Commissioner. Hence this revision petition. 3. Sh. Premjit Kalia, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the petitioner being a fauji allottee got the land in dispute on lease as per Press Note issue by the Punjab Government vide Memo No. 3355-JN/4-62-2330 dated 11.5.1962. Hence this revision petition. 3. Sh. Premjit Kalia, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the petitioner being a fauji allottee got the land in dispute on lease as per Press Note issue by the Punjab Government vide Memo No. 3355-JN/4-62-2330 dated 11.5.1962. The petitioner remanded in continuous possession of land as per jamabandis for the years 1964-65, 1969-70 and 1975-76. During this period the petitioner applied for the purchase of land on 19.9.1969 under the said Press Note. However, unfortunately, his application was not processed by the authorities and no notice for cancellation of his lease was issued. The counsel contended that Boor Singh, father of Narinder Singh cultivated the land as his sub-tenant. He was given only khasra number of 16/24, as is evident from the jamabandi for the year 1974-75. The civil court decree was passed only to the extent that he should not be dispossessed except in the due course of law. The counsel averred that the Chief Sales Commissioner has rightly cancelled the transfer of land in favour of respondent No. 1 keeping in view the above mentioned Press Note. The Commissioner has erred while holding that after the expiry of 10 years, a fauji allottee has no right in the land. It proves that these observations of the Commissioner are contrary to the Press Note dated 11.5.1962. As a matter of fact, respondent No. 1 cannot be held to be having possession in his independent capacity because he is holding the possession on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner is only entitled to allotment and permanent right. The counsel urged for setting aside the sale of land in favour of the respondent No. 1 and cancelling the conveyance deed dated 5.5.1999. 4. Sh S.K. Mahajan, Advocate, appeared on behalf of Narinder Singh, respondent No. 1, rebutted the arguments and pleaded that the order of the learned Commissioner is well reasoned. The revenue record (Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris) which carries presumption of truth clearly indicates that the respondent is in cultivating possession of the land for the last more than 20 years. No doubt the petitioner was given disputed land being a fauji allottee for 10 years but after taking the possession, he left the village because area in question was in the shape of mounds and dunes. The respondent, with hard labour and heavy expenses, leveled the land and made it cultivable. No doubt the petitioner was given disputed land being a fauji allottee for 10 years but after taking the possession, he left the village because area in question was in the shape of mounds and dunes. The respondent, with hard labour and heavy expenses, leveled the land and made it cultivable. When the petitioner came in the village in year 1978 much after lease period, he tried to take forcible possession. The respondent had to file an suit No. 130 of 1982 in the court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Anjala which was decreed on 1.12.1983 in favour of the respondent. This decree is binding upon the revenue courts. The counsel also pointed out that Tehsildar (Sales) Ajnala has transferred the land to the respondent already keeping in view the Press Note and the provisions of Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976 and after recording the statements of members of the Panchayat, and respectables of village, inspection of spot and checking the Ration Card, Chulla tax receipt etc. The petition filed by the petitioner before the Chief Sales Commissioner, Amritsar was hopelessly time-bared and no reasons regarding condonation of delay has been given by him. The counsel requested to set aside the order of the Chief Sales Commissioner and dismiss the petition being against the principles of natural justice. 5. I have considered the arguments adduced by both counsel and have gone through the impugned order and record on the file. In my opinion, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed as no satisfactory explanation is forth coming from the side of petitioner to justify the factum of not cultivating the land for more than 20 years. All the copies of Jamabandis for the year 1979-80, 1984-85, 1989-90 and 1994-95 prove the possession of Narinder Singh as recorded in cultivation column. The copies of Jamabandis for the year 1964-65 and 1969-1970 produced by the petitioner reveal the ownership of the provincial Government and show that the petitioner was only a cultivator. He himself gae this land to Sh. Boor Singh father of the respondent No. 1 for cultivation through an agreement dated 3.5.1976 (copy of the iqrarnama attached by the petitioner). When the petitioner tried to take forcible possession, the respondent had to file the Suit No. 130 of 1982 for permanent injunction. He himself gae this land to Sh. Boor Singh father of the respondent No. 1 for cultivation through an agreement dated 3.5.1976 (copy of the iqrarnama attached by the petitioner). When the petitioner tried to take forcible possession, the respondent had to file the Suit No. 130 of 1982 for permanent injunction. The Sub-Judge, Ajnala has passed decree in favour of Narinder Singh on 1.12.1983 observing as under :- "It was admitted by the parties that when the land was owned by the Provincial Government, then the allotment was only for 10 years. As per revenue record, the possession had been delivered to the defendant in the year 1963-64, and the defendant had been shown in cultivating possession at least till 1978- 1979, but after that the defendant had not been in possession of the suit land. The suit had been filed on 8.1.1982. After the expiry of 10 years, the defendant had possibly no right in the land and he was also not in possession of the suit and on the date of filing the suit." All the Revenue Officers are bound to implement the civil court decree and make the entries in revenue record accordingly. 6. The counsel for the petitioner could not unfold any convincing circumstances to convince me to set aside the impugned order dated 6.2.2001 except that he is a fauji allottee. The impugned order does not suffer from any arbitrariness or perversity to justify interference by way of revision. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Announced. Petition dismissed.