JAGDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by some landowners against the order of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, respondent No. 2, directing, on the application of Arjan Singh, respondent No. 3, that the surplus area proceedings under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter briefly referred to as the Act), which had been finalised in 1961 should be started afresh in accordance with law because the Collector's order did not make it clear as to what records he had relied upon to determine the classification and evaluation of the holding. The learned Commissioner relied on Maghar Singh v. The Punjab State and others, 1967 PunLJ 245, but another ruling which was more pertinent to the facts of the case, namely, Chhota Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1968 PunLJ 38, does not appear to have been brought to his notice.

(2.) It was the petitioners' case that the draft statement had been finalised in 1961 in accordance with the provisions of Section 32-D of the Act and that the final statement had been duly published in the Official Gazette. The reason given by the Collector for re-opening the whole proceedings appears to be that there was no proper compliance with the provisions of Section 32-NN of the Act which requires that the land owned by a person immediately before the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956, was to be taken into consideration for evaluating or converting the land into standard acres. Even if there is no compliance with any provisions of the law of procedure the defect had to be remedied before the proceeding had become final under Section 32-D of the Act. According to the return filed by the State of Punjab, respondent No. 1, the question had actually been agitated before the Collector before the proceedings were finalised in 1961. It was alleged in paragraph 13 of that return that the Collector Agrarian had at the time of passing the order, dated 31.1.1961, taken into consideration the Jamabandis of 1954-55 for evaluating the land. The petitioner-landowners had gone up in appeal before the Commissioner on the ground that the Collector had not taken into account the latest Jamabandis and that the evaluation of the land on the basis of the latest Jamabandis would be different. This objection was, however, given up. Apparently, it was felt that there was not much difference between the jamabandis of 1954-55 and the latter jamabandis. The previous evaluation was, therefore, allowed to stand. The quality of land does not change so very frequently that a previous Jamabandi could not be adopted as a basis for the evaluation when it was felt that it was not very much different from the latest Jamabandis. In any case, a mere irregularity as regards the observance of the procedural provisions of Section 32-NN would not justify the reopening of the proceedings which had become final in 1961 by virtue of the provisions of Section 32-D of the Act. In this connection the following observations of the learned Judge in Chhota Singh's case could be reproduced with advantage :

(3.) Respondent No. 3 is a person who had been re-settled on the surplus area as an eligible person or a displaced tenant. He was not a proper or a necessary party in the original proceedings for the determination of the permissible and surplus areas. The petitioners' objection that he had no locus standi to file a revision petition is not without force.