STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. DIDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal has been brought by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 31.1.1986 passed by Additional District Judge (III), Sangrur vide which the appeal of Didar Singh, plaintiff had been accepted. The proceedings between the parties commenced by way of a suit filed by Didar Singh for declaration to the effect that no land held by him had been surplus and that Collector, Agrarian, Sangrur had assessed a part of his land as surplus on wrong assessment of valuation of his land. He had challenged the orders of the Collector, Agrarian and the Appellate Authority in respect of the same and had sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from allotting the land measuring 47 kanals 2 marlas situated in the area of village Ubhawal detailed in the head note of the plaint to any one else as also from taking possession thereof. The case set up by Didar Singh is as under:-

(2.) The plaintiff is owner of the land measuring 340 kanals 16 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Ubhawal as per jamabandi for the year 1968- 69. Out of this land, land measuring 41 kanals 6 marlas has been chahi, land measuring 108 kanals 5 marlas has been nehri and land measuring 191 kanals 19 marlas has been barani. No land in his possession/ownership has been surplus. He filed necessary application before Collector, Agrarian, Sangrur under the Punjab Land Reforms Act,1972 (for short "the Act"). However, after requisite enquiry, the Collector held 3.40 hectares of his land as surplus vide order dated 30.6.1976. His appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala succeeded on 20.12.1978 and the case was remanded to the Collector, Agrarian for fresh decision. Vide order dated 27.1.1981, the Collector again declared 1.84.77 hectares of land of the plaintiff as surplus. The plaintiff again went in appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala where he raised the plea that value of his land has been wrongly assessed on the ground that he had installed a 5-horse power electric motor in his fields for irrigating the same. The Commissioner accepted his appeal and again remanded the case back. Now, the Collector, vide his order dated 15.10.1981, had held that the land measuring 1.66.62 hectares was surplus with the plaintiff. The Collector, accordingly, issued notice under section 9 of the Act on 27.1.1982 for delivering possession of the said land. The plaintiff has questioned the orders dated 19.8.1981, 15.10.1981 and 27.1.1982 as illegal and not binding on him. According to him, the authorities under the Act did not take into consideration the khasra girdawari entries for the crops of rabi and kharif, 1970 while assessing the value of the land. He has also claimed that the authorities have wrongly held him to have installed a 5-horse power electric motor in his fields for irrigating the same. According to him, he has been irrigating the land by way of a Persian Wheel. Therefore, he has prayed for the relief. On notice, the defendants appeared and contested the claim of the plaintiff. Objections regarding maintainability, want of notice under section 80 of the C.P.C. and want of jurisdiction with the civil court under section 21 of the Act have been taken. It is alleged that the plaintiff did not file any appeal or revision against the impugned orders and as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) On merits, the orders of the Collector, Agrarian and the Commissioner are claimed to be perfectly legal and in accordance with the provisions of law. The value of the land held by the plaintiff is said to be correctly assessed in view of the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules,1973 (for brevity, 'the Rules'). It is alleged that the plaintiff was irrigating his land by 5- horse power electric motor and that he could not prove that the said motor was installed after the appointed day in spite of a number of opportunities given to him. It is also alleged that possession of the land has been taken by the State vide rapat rojnamacha wakiati No. 466 dated 3.7.1982 and the Collector is fully competent to allot the said land.