Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 116 (PNJ)

Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2007-01-22

G.S.CHEEMA

body2007
ORDER G.S. Cheema, F.C. - These are two revision petitions under Section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act against the order dated 20.7.2004 of Commissioner Jalandhar Division. Both the Revision Petitions are turning around the alleged surplus area of one Suba Singh, a big landowner of Village Jhabal Manan, Tehsil & Distt. Tarn Taran. The facts are the same and both can be disposed of by a single order. 2. In ROR 394 the material respondents are Bakshish Singh and Dalip Singh who claim that they were allotted 63K-14M out of the surplus area of the late Suba Singh out of which however for some reason they were given possession of only 31K-10M, on 30.1.1964 as per the roznamcha entry of the circle patwari. Sandha Singh (now deceased and represented by his son Surjit Singh) was likewise allotted 38K-10M and received possession of it on the same date. This land measuring 38K-10M is the subject matter of the second case (ROR 395). 3. Then in 1992 both allottees Bakshish Singh and Dalip Singh and Surjit Singh (L.R. of Sandha Singh) filed purchase applications for their respective allotments, which were allowed by the Collector. But then the successors of Suba Singh (who had died on 19.3.1987) went in appeal before the Commissioner who vide order dated 16.7.1998 accepted their appeal and remanded the case back to the Collector for fresh decision after giving a hearing to the other side. The chief reason for remanding the case was because proper service had not been effected on the landowners. 4. On remand the Collector decided the matter in favour of the landowners and disallowed the purchase applications vide his order dated 14.5.2003, against which Bakhshish Singh, Dalip Singh and Surjit Singh appealed to the Commissioner who again remanded the matter to the Collector vide order dated 27.4.2004. It is against this remand order that the landowners have filed the present revision petitions. 5. I have heard both the counsel and gone through the orders of lower courts. The counsel for the petitioners has argued that there is no evidence that the deceased Suba Singh was ever a big landowner and that any surplus land was ever allotted to the respondents. The only evidence is an entry in the patwaris roznamcha, there are no entries in the Khasra girdawari register or jamabandi. The counsel for the petitioners has argued that there is no evidence that the deceased Suba Singh was ever a big landowner and that any surplus land was ever allotted to the respondents. The only evidence is an entry in the patwaris roznamcha, there are no entries in the Khasra girdawari register or jamabandi. By their own admission in the civil suit filed by Bakhshish Singh and Dalip Singh in 1990, they were also no longer in possession of the disputed land. The civil Court had concluded that the evidence produced by the allottees was scanty and it could not be conclusively said to be proved that they were ever in possession of the disputed land. The roznamcha report of 30.1.1964 was perfunctory in nature and in the absence of primary evidence like an allotment order could not be relied upon. An appeal against the findings of the civil Court also failed on 30.7.1993. 6. The evidence, as it stands, is indeed thin but in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case I feel this is a fit case for giving the weaker party another opportunity to produce any additional evidence, which they may be able to discover before the Collector. The vital point that needs to be established is whether any land of the late Suba Singh was in fact ever declared surplus and whether it was utilized before his death on 19.3.1987. Therefore, I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the orders dated 27.4.2004 of the Commissioner and accordingly uphold the same. Therefore, both the present revision petitions are dismissed. Announced. Petitions dismissed.