Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranbir vs State Of Punjab on 2 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115494
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-7341-1993
1993 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.09.2024
.2024
RANBIR AND OTHERS ...Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present : Mr. Gulshan Sharma,, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Navneet Singh, Senior D.A.G., Punjab.
HARSH BUNGER, J.
Petitioners have filed the instant writ petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India,
India, seeking a writ in the nature of
certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 06.05.1993 (Annexure P-1)
certiorari, P
passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab; order
dated 12.06.1986
.06.1986 (Annexure P-2)
P 2) passed by the learned Commissioner,
Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and also the order dated 31.05.1984
(Annexure P-3)
P 3) passed by the learned Collector (A
(Agrarian), Abohar.
2. Briefly, the surplus area case of predecessor in interest of the
private respondents was decided by the learned Collector, under the
provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (in short `the 1972 Act')
wherein 8.31.49 hectares of first quality land was declared surplus and an
appeal filed by one landowner (Sahib Singh) was dismissed by the Appel
Appellate
late
Authority vide order dated 04.06.1982.
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115494
2.1 It is the case of the petitioners that they along with their father-
Sanwal Ram (since deceased) were cultivating 190 Kanals-3 Marlas of land
as tenants under the private respondents (big landlord) since 1953-54.
Petitioners claim that their possession over the afore-said land was un-
interrupted. According to the petitioners, only 44 Kanals-10 Marlas of land
was allowed as Tenants Permissible Area (in short `TPA'), out of the
afore-said total land of 190 Kanals-3 Marlas and their claim as regards the
remaining land was rejected by the learned Collector (Agrarian), Abohar,
vide order dated 31.05.1984 (Annexure P-3) on the ground that since they
had purchased the rest of the land from the land owners vide registered sale
deed dated 23.10.1981, therefore, they ceased to be tenants on the purchased
portion of the land.
2.2 Being aggrieved against the afore-said order dated 31.05.1984
(Annexure P-3), the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned
Divisional Commissioner, which was also dismissed vide order dated
12.06.1986 (Annexure P-2).
2.3 A further revision petition filed by the petitioner before the
learned Financial Commissioner, was also dismissed vide order dated
06.05.1993 (Annexure P-1).
3. In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the present writ petition
has been filed before this Court for the relief, as noticed here-in-above.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned
orders are wrong, perverse and are therefore, liable to be set aside. It is
submitted that the claim of the petitioners has been rejected only on the
ground that their father-Sanwal Ram, ceased to be a tenant on the land on
account of his purchase of the land from the big land-owner. It is submitted
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115494
that mere purchase by tenant of land which is under cultivation of the tenants
would not deprive them of their status as tenants. It is further submitted that
the petitioners are poor persons and they have no other source of livelihood
except the land under their possession, which according to the petitioners, is
continuing since 1953-54. It is next contended that the case of the petitioners
is covered by a judgment dated 18.04.1975 (Annexure P-4) rendered by this
Court in CWP-716-1966 titled as Munshi Ram and another vs State of
Punjab etc. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State has
opposed the submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the
petitioners by submitting that the petitioners have not come to the Court with
clean hands. It is submitted that petitioner No.3 is not the son of Sanwal
Ram, rather he is the son of Smt. Bakhtavri daughter of Sanwal Ram and he
had become owner through Will dated 23.04.1984 (Annexure R-1). It is
further submitted that the petitioners have no locus standito file the present
writ petition as Sahib Ram (land owner) is the owner of 1/5th share of the
land in question; therefore, the petitioners cannot be entitled to claim the
land measuring 190 Kanal-3 Marlas as their TPA. It is further submitted that
the petitioners are not legally entitled for TPA. As per report of the Field
Staff, Sanwal Ram cultivated 44 Kanals-10 Marlas, out of which, Sahib Ram
has 1/5th share. As regards the rest of the land under cultivation of Sanwal
Ram, it was reported by the Patwari that he had purchased the land through
Registry and had given this land to Teg Ram, Dattu and Ranbir etc. It is
further submitted that according to the Revenue Records, only Sanwal Ram,
was tenant of the land measuring 44 Kanals-10 Marlas as on the appointed
date i.e. 24.01.1971, so he is entitled for TPA only as regards the land which
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115494
was under his possession as tenant since 1970-71. It is still further submitted
that according to the Revenue Records, the petitioners were not tenant at
Will since 1953-54 on the land in question rather they became tenants on
23.04.1984. The claim of the petitioners that they are poor persons, was also
denied by the respondent-State and as regards the reliance placed by the
petitioners upon the judgment rendered in CWP-716-1966, it was submitted
that the same was not applicable in the attending circumstances.
Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the writ petition has been made.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the paper-book with their able assistance.
7. In the present case, the learned Collector, Fazilka, vide its order
dated 09.02.1977, declared 8.31.49 hectares of first quality land of Sahib
Ram, as surplus under the 1972 Act. A further appeal by Sh. Sahib Ram
(land-owner) was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner,
Ferozepur, vide its order dated 04.06.1982. It transpires that the present
petitioners challenged the order dated 09.02.1977 before the learned
Commissioner, who vide its order dated 17.01.1984, remanded the case to
the learned Collector (Agrarian), Abohar for deciding the case afresh after
giving opportunity of hearing to Sanwal Ram etc. Upon remand, the learned
Collector (Agrarian), Abohar called for a report from the Field Staff;
whereupon, the concerned Patwari reported that Sanwal Ram was cultivating
44 Kanals-10 Marlas of land.
8. The learned Collector (Agrarian), Abohar, vide its order
dated 31.05.1984 (Annexure P-3), decided the remand case by observing as
under :-
"Record was perused and the arguments were
heard from the advocate as well as Naib Tehsildar
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115494
(Surplus) from the state side. As per record Sanwal Ram
was cultivating 190 kanals 30 marlas of land in 1970 as
tenant under Sarve Shri Balram, Daulat Ram, Lal Chand,
Sahib Ram, Raja Ram etc. out of this Sahib Ram land
owner has 1/5th share. As per report of the field staff
Sanwal Ram now cultivating 44 kanals 10 marlas and out
of which Sahib Ram has 1/5th share. Regarding rest of the
land under cultivation of Sanwal Ram, the patwari has
reported that he has purchased the land through registry
and has given this land to Sarve Shri Teg Ram, Dattu
Ram, Ranbir etc. The claims of Teg Ram, Dattu Ram,
Ranbir have already been rejected by the Commissioner
Ferozepur vide appeal No.J.A./N.A./695 (82). Sanwal
Ram is cultivating 44 kanals 10 marlas of land since
1970. Out of this 1/5th share of Sahib Ram i.e. 8 kanals
18 marlas is Nehri. The first quality of this land is
0.24.53 hectares. This land is given to Sanwal Ram as his
tenants permissible area. After leaving tenants
permissible area of Sanwal Ram rest 8.06.96 hectares of
land is declared as first quality surplus area. Regarding
tenants permissible area of the tenants is list `A' and
regarding surplus the list is `B' is enclosed. To utilise the
surplus area, proceedings under section 9(1) be initiated.
Order is announced."
9. An appeal filed by the petitioners before the learned
Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur was disposed of vide order
dated 12.06.1986, by observing as under :-
"I have heard the counsel for the appellants and
the ADA on behalf of the State.
The declaration filed by Sahib Ram was taken up
and Collector Agrarian, Fazilka determined on 9.2.1977
that Sahib Ram held land measuring 879 K 5 M
(19.2925) in village Dhinganwali, Shergarh Waryam
Khera and Sherwala on the appointed day. 42 K 6 M
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115494
(1.1776) was surplus under the old Act and was reduced
(I hope Collector Agrarian, Abohar, has taken steps to
vest the same in the State). Allowing 9. hectares for a
family of 7, the Collector declared 8.149 hectares as
surplus. Though Sahib Ram was a co-shares with four
others, the Collector declared specific Khasra numbers
as surplus (total 380-K 1 M). The appeal preferred by
Sahib Ram was dismissed on 4.6.1982 by Additional
Commissioner and as such the order has become final for
all intent and purposes, against the big landowner. Teg
Ram son of Arjun Ram, Datta Ram s/o Sanwal Ram,
Ranbir Singh son of Sanwal Ram and Sanwal Ram
preferred an appeal against the determination of surplus
area of Sahib Ram claiming to be tenants entitled to TPA.
The Commissioner did not find any other person as
bonafide tenant, rejected their claims and held that
Sanwal Ram was the only one who should be heard by
the Collector. The Collector Agrarian, Abohar, has
passed the impugned order thereafter and hence the
present appeal.
I find that apart from Sanwal Ram his two sons are
also appellants. I am afraid these two persons have no
locus standi to file the appeal as their contentions stand
rejected by the Commissioner, Ferozepur on 17.1.1984.
The present order shall not confer any right or benefit to
the sons of Sanwal Ram.
The Collector Agrarian, Abohar, got a chhant
prepared afresh in which he found that Sahib Ram was
cultivating only 44 K - 10 M of land. No other land was
under his cultivation at present. Having his finding on
this Chhant, he allowed only 1/5th share out of 44 K - 10
M as TPA and kept remaining area as surplus. I have
seen the Chhant prepared by the Patwari and copies of
Khasra Girdawari presented by the counsel for the
appellant. Regarding 44 K 10 M declard surplus, there is
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115494
no doubt that Sanwal Ram is a tenant on the land since
1970. As Collector Fazilka, on 9.2.1977 selected specific
khasra numbers (and not a share in joint holding as
surplus), Sanwal Ram becomes the tenant under Sahib
Ram for the entire 44 K 10 M of land.
However, I agree with the finding of fact by
Collector Agrarian, Abohar, that in Rect. No.190-191
(the khasra numbers referred to by counsel). Sanwal Ram
was no longer a tenant. The land was purchased by
Sanwal Ram and his sons from the big land owner. As
such Sanwal Ram ceased to be a tenant and is not
entitled to any declaration of TPA of Rect no.190 and
191. Sanwal Ram has by his own conduct and action
ceased to be continuous tenant before determination of
TPA and cannot make any such claim. This claim of
Sanwal Ram is rejected being not in cultivating
possession of various khasra numbers in Rect. No.190
and 191. The purchase made by him and his sons hit by
Section 11(5) of the Act and such purchase suffer 21.1.71
is to be ignored for the purposes of Land Reforms Act.
The appeal is partly accepted and Sanwal Ram is
declared entitled to 44 K 10 M as TPA. He is directed to
appear before the Collector Agrarian, Abohar, on
15.7.1986 who will make the necessary order by
amending Annexure `A' attached to order dated
9.2.1977."
10. A further revision petition filed by the petitioners before the
learned Financial Commissioner was dismissed vide order dated 06.05.1993
(Annexure P-1)
11. From a perusal of the findings returned by the authorities
below, it is evident that the petitioners were not the tenants on the land
regarding which, they are claiming T.P.A. Once the petitioners were not
tenants on the land on the appointed date under the 1972 Act, therefore, they
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115494
are not entitled to claim the T.P.A. Furthermore, it appears that the claim of
the petitioners was rejected earlier on 17.01.1984 by learned Commissioner,
Ferozepur in appeal filed by the petitioners along with their father
Sanwal Ram, wherein it was held that the petitioners have no locus standi.
Petitioners have conveniently concealed the said order dated 17.01.1984.
11.1 A Division Bench of this Court in Jagraj Singh and others v.
State of Punjab and another, 1978 PLJ 59., has held as under:-
''A plain reading of sub-section (1) of sections 4 and 7
leads to a clear conclusion that the Act does envisage the
concept of tenants' permissible area and a person who
does not otherwise own land, has a right to reserve and
retain land in his occupation as a tenant as tenants'
permissible area subject to the extent detailed in sub-
section (2) of section 4. Under sub-section (1) of section 5
only such tenants of the land are to be recognised for the
purposes of the Act who occupied it as such on the
appointed day, which under sub-section (1) of section 3 is
21st (24th) of January, 1971. In view of these clear
provisions in the Act, the argument of the learned counsel
for the State that the petitioners cannot assert their claim
qua any land of respondents Nos. 3 to 5 as tenant's
permissible area under the Act cannot be sustained.
(emphasis supplied)''
12. Still further, learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to
dislodge the finding of facts recorded by the authorities below in the
impugned orders nor it has been indicated as to how the impugned orders are
patently illegal or perverse.
13. As regards the reliance placed upon by the petitioners in
Munish Ram's case (supra), it is observed that the said judgment is
distinguishable on facts as the same has been rendered under the provisions
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115494
of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 whereas, the present case
has been dealt with under the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act,
1972.
14. In view of the afore-mentioned facts and circumstances,
there is no scope for any interference by this Court in the impugned orders,
resultantly, the instant writ petition fails and the same is, accordingly,
dismissed.
15. All pending application/s, if any, shall also stand closed.
September 02, 2024 (HARSH BUNGER)
gurpreet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
9 of 9
