JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Joginder Singh, petitioner No. 1, who is a landowner in village Dugan, tehsil and district Sangrur has filed this writ petition along with his two sons Kaur Singh and Babu Singh, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) On an application filed under Section 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter briefly referred to as 'the Act') by eligible tenants, respondent Nos. 5 to 7 who had been settled on the land declared as surplus area of the petitioner landowner, the Collector, Sangrur, respondent No. 4, had directed after summary enquiry that the petitioner landowner should restore possession of the land of which respondent Nos. 5 to 7 had been dispossessed by the petitioners in an unlawful and forcible manner. An appeal filed by the petitioner landowner was dismissed by the Commissioner, respondent No. 3, and a further revision petition filed by the landowner met with the same fate at the hands of the Financial Commissioner, respondent No. 2, of the State of Punjab, respondent No. 1. These orders of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had been called in question on a number of grounds mentioned in this Civil Writ petition filed in the year 1964. Further grounds were set up in a miscellaneous application filed very nearly four years after the filing of the writ petition. Most of the grounds taken have ceased to be tenable in view of later decisions of this Court. Shri Jawanda, the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, confines his submissions to the following two grounds only :-

(3.) The first ground had been pressed by the landowner before respondent Nos. 2 to 4 also. Section 43 of the Act was found to have been placed on the statute book for coping with situations of the type that had arisen in the present case. The petitioner landowner's surplus area had been declared in the year 1962 on the basis of returns filed by the landowner in the prescribed form 7-A in respect of his holding in accordance with the provisions of Section 32-B of the Act. Particulars of the land furnished by the owner had then been verified by the Naib-Tehsildar Agrarian, and on the basis of verifications at the spot, the landowner was found to have 44 Standard Acres and 15-1/4 Units of land on the 21st August, 1956. Some exemption had been claimed by the land-owner on the ground that a part of the area was under an orchard but this claim was rejected by the Pepsu Land Commission. An area of 14 Standard Acres and 15-1/4 Units was, therefore, declared as surplus area on the 31st January, 1962. The landowner had failed to furnish any proof in support of his objections in spite of about half a dozen adjournments having been granted by respondent No. 4. The objections failed also on the ground that they had been filed more than 30 days after the service of the draft statement. Order declaring the landowner's surplus area was appealable but no objection may appear to have been taken at any stage in an appeal that the surplus area had been wrongly declared or that any land in the occupation of tenants had wrongly been taken into account by the Surplus Area Authorities. The impugned order (Annexure 'C') passed on the 26th March, 1964 by respondent No. 3 would then show that it was found on the basis of evidence examined by the authorities that the landowner had taken forcible possession of that part of the surplus area which had been allotted to respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and of which actual physical possession had been delivered to the allottees on the 13th May, 1963. There was regular report about the delivery of such possession to the allottees in the Patwari's roznamcha which had been duly attested, amongst others, by a Patwari, a Panch, a Chowkidar and a Kanungo. Three of these revenue officials had been examined as witnesses in proof of that report about delivery of possession to the allottees. According to this report, some cotton crop of the landowner was standing on a part of the land and compensation bad been assessed at the sum of Rs. 60/-. This amount had actually been deposited by the allottees. The forcible dispossession had been promptly reported by the allottees to a Sarpanch and some others who had been examined as witnesses during the proceedings before the Collector. When the ease went up in revision before the Financial Commissioner, the finding based on this oral and documentary evidence was conceded to be correct by the land-owner. On these facts, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have correctly found that they could direct restoration of possession in a summary manner under Section 43 of the Act. Shri Jawanda relies on Bur Singh and others v. Commissioner, Patiala Division, and others, 1961 1 ILR(P&H) 546), Bal Krishan Khosla v. Ram Gopal,1957 LLT 15), and Nachhittar Singh and another v. The Financial Commissioner, Planning, Punjab and others,1968 LLT 114). If the ratio of these rulings is kept in mind, Section 43 would be found to be fully applicable and to have been enacted for cases like the present. Delivery of the possession to the allottee and the protection of that possession against any trespass by the landowner who wants to be in possession of an area in excess of the permissible limits are purposes for which the Act was passed and if the landowner tries to transgress the permissible limits and takes the law in his own hands, he is clearly violating the purposes and intentions for which the Act was passed by the Legislature. I, therefore, see no force in Shri Jawanda's contention that Section 43 of the Act had been wrongly invoked by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 while directing restoration of possession to the allottees, respondent Nos. 5 to 7.