BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB GOVERNMENT AT (CIVIL) CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala dated October 27, 1980 affirming, on appeal, the order of the Collector Agrarian Reforms, Malerkotla dated August 28, 1975, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The facts lie in a narrow compass: The petitioner is a displaced person from Sind (Pakistan). He was allotted land measuring 84-9-3/4 standard acres in village Chaprauda, Tehsil Malerkotla on temporary basis, vide Parcha allotment dated February 7, 1950 The Managing Officer. Rehabilitation Department cancelled the allotment of land measuring 14.101/2 Std. Acres out of the temporarily allotted land to the petitioner, vide his order dated December 26, 1962. The petitioner was left with only 69.15-1/2 Std. Acres of the temporarily allotted land. Proceedings under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (for short, the Act) were initiated against the petitioner. These proceedings were suspended on and that the petitioner was only a temporary allottee and the Act was not applicable. The petitioner was issued Sanad on June 15, 1965 giving him proprietary rights regarding the land measuring 69.15-1/2 Std. Acres. The petitioner transferred some land, vide registered sale deeds dated June 19, 1965, January 10, 1966, June 2, 1966, March 31, 1970, March 30, 1972 and May 8, 1972 and mortgaged some land on May 24, 1971. These transfers are not hit by the provisions of Section, 32-FF of the Act. The last statement under Section 32-D(2) of the Act was served upon the petitioner on August 24, 1972 mentioning 83.90 Std. Acres as his total holding and after leaving 40 Std. Acres as his permissible area, proposed to declare 43.90 Std. Acres as the surplus area. Thereafter the Collector, Agrarian Reforms, Malerkotla, vide his order dated August 28, 1975 declared 43.90 Std. Acres as surplus area with the petitioner. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order of the Collector, Agrarian Reforms before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, in appeal. On the commencement of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (for short, the 1972 Act) he filed/form 'A' within the prescribed time under Section 5(1) of that Act. The Collector (Agrarian), Malerkotla, vide her order dated June 30, 1976, found that the petitioner did not possess any surplus land and ordered the consignment of the record.

(3.) It is unfortunate that the petitioner or the functionaries of the State did not bring the order of the Collector (Agrarian) dated June 30, 1976 to the notice of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala hearing the appeal against the order of the Collector, Agrarian Reforms, Malerkotla dated August 28, 1975 holding that land measuring 43.90 Std. Acres was surplus with the petitioner. The Collector (Agrarian) while deciding the surplus area case of the petitioner under the Act presumably was ignorant of the fact that the same had to be decided in the light of the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act. All the proceedings pending for determination of the surplus area under the Act were to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the 1972 Act. (See in this connection, Ranjit Ram v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and others, 1981 PunLJ 259, Nachhatar Singh and others v. The State and others,1982 PunLJ 223, and Sh. Jagjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1983 PunLJ 319. In fact, the surplus area case of the petitioner had been decided under the 1972 Act and in the light of the order, dated June 30, 1976 passed by the collector (Agrarian), Malerkotla under that Act holding that the petitioner did not have any surplus land, the proceedings under the Act have been rendered invalid. If the Collector, Agrarian Reforms, Malerkotla, while deciding the surplus area case. of the petitioner under the Act had invited his attention to the provisions of the 1972 Act, he would not have committed the error of the type committed in his order dated August 28, 1975.