Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1 (PNJ)

Mohan Lal v. State through C. R. O. Abohar

2002-01-01

KARL REDDY

body2002
ORDER Karl Reddy, F.C. - These are two petitions 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 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 seeking to revise the order dated 28.10.1991 of the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, and the order dated 16.6.1987 of the Collector Agrarian, Abohar. The issues in both cases being the same and the Commissioner having decided both vide a single order, both RORs are being decided by a single order. However, a copy of the order shall be placed on each file. 2. The Collector Agrarian vide order dated 2.5.1983 decided the surplus area cases of the landowners under the Old Act. Certain vendees filed applications for exclusion of the area purchased before 1.2.1967 from the surplus pool. The Collector Agrarian vide order dated 11.1.1984 reviewed his earlier order without seeking prior sanction. The Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur vide order dated 22.12.1986 quashed the order dated 11.1.1984 on appeal filed by the big landowners. The vendees were allowed to get themselves impleaded in the pending appeal, but instead they filed separate appeals. In all these cases, the Commissioner heard arguments on 17.3.1987, overruled the objection raised by the State representative and Shri C. M. Munjal, Advocate, counsel for the landowners, and vide separate but essentially similar orders dated 1.4.1987 remanded the cases for fresh decision by the Collector with a direction to the parties to appear before him on 4.5.1987. 3. The landowners did not appeal before the Collector on the stipulated date consequent on which they were proceeded against ex parte. Land in villages Modi Khera, Khuban, Tarmala and Gaddan Dob was declared surplus vide orders dated 16.6.1987. At the stage when notices under Section 9(1) of the New Act issued, the landowners went up in appeal on the round that ex parte proceedings had been taken without notice to them, that the Collector should have selected permissible area in village Modi Khera which was under self cultivation and not in village Gaddan Dob which was not under self- cultivation, and that no area had been declared TPA. The Commissioner dismissed the appeals vide his aforesaid order. Hence the present petition. 4. The landowners were represented by Shri C. M. Munjal, Advocate on 17.3.1987 when the Commissioner heard arguments. The Commissioner dismissed the appeals vide his aforesaid order. Hence the present petition. 4. The landowners were represented by Shri C. M. Munjal, Advocate on 17.3.1987 when the Commissioner heard arguments. Consequently their plea of ignorance of the order dated 1.4.1987 directing to the parties to appear before the Collector on 4.5.1987 has to be rejected. Moreover, they have not assailed the finding of the Commissioner that land in village Gaddan Dob was included in the reservation made by them. They have not specified the area under self- cultivation, if any, that was reserved by them and was not included in their reserved area by the Collector. As regards TPA, the Collector had left 72 SA 3-1/3 U and 68 SA 15-1/4 U for the tenants. 5. It is patent that any fresh selection consequent on reopening of the case will affect a large number of persons, including tenants who purchased land in their tenancy under Section 18 of the Old Act and their successors-in- interest, who have not been impleaded. Even among the vendees from the landowner who had filed appeals before the Commissioner in 1984 :- Sampuran Singh s/o Jamiat Singh Om Parkash s/o Ram Rakh, Samma Devi d/o Ganga Ram Sanjev Kumar s/o Jaswant Singh, Chambeli Devi wd/o Jaswant Ram Singh, Darshan Singh ss/o Buta Singh Jagjit Singh s/o Sarwan Singh Mohinder Singh, Shaminder Singh ss/o Labh Singh Bohar Singh, Sukhdev Singh ss/o Sahib Singh Moharia Ram s/o Bhana Ram Joginder Singh, Mohinder Singh, Balbir Singh ss/o Pal Singh Mukhtiar Singh, Gurdev Singh, Baldev Singh, Nachattar Singh, sons, Kartar Kaur, Gurdial Kaur Gurtej Kaur, daughters, of Bachittar Singh Only the first has been impleaded before the Commissioner in the present proceedings. No doubt the land purchased by respondent No. 2 is in village Modi Khera, but it ceased to be area under self-cultivation once the landowners sold it to him. The locus standi of respondent No. 3 before the Commissioner is not apparent, and in fact he was proceeded against ex parte. In the ROR, some more parties have been impleaded as respondents but their locus standi has not been indicated, nor are they contesting. Some part of the surplus area sold by the landowners has been exempted from utilization (i.e. for re-settlement of tenants) in the hands of the vendees under Executive Instructions of the State Government issued in 1967. These vendees have not been impleaded. Some part of the surplus area sold by the landowners has been exempted from utilization (i.e. for re-settlement of tenants) in the hands of the vendees under Executive Instructions of the State Government issued in 1967. These vendees have not been impleaded. 6. At the arguments stage, counsel for the petitioners has taken the ground that declaration of surplus area under the Old Act after the coming into force of the New Act is illegal. This ground was not taken before the Commissioner when the landowners challenged the order of the Collector Agrarian dated 11.1.1984 or even when they challenged the order of the Collector Agrarian, Abohar dated 16.6.1987. The landowners had not taken the ground that no area declared surplus under the Old Act has been utilized, or impleaded the affected persons if such is not the case. The landowners had not taken the ground that their entitlement under the New Act is in excess of the area selected under the Old Act, and consequently they are entitled to select additional area. The landowners had not even taken the ground, which appears to be a sine qua non for the ratio of 1983 PLJ 319 and 1989 PLJ 612 to apply, that they intend to avail of the benefit of Section 5 of the New Act for their adult sons. They had only taken the ground that the Collector selected their permissible area ignoring the criteria laid down in Section 5(2) of the New Act, namely that selection shall include, firstly, land under mortgage and, secondly, land under self-cultivation. This plea can be taken only in proceedings under the New Act, and that too, at the stage of Sections 5 and 7, and not at the stage of Section 9(l). 7. Accordingly, the revision petitions are dismissed. To be communicated. Petitions dismissed.