JASWANT SINGH Vs. PUNJAB GOVERNMENT CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE my order dated 3-6-1992 1 allowed the appeal by passing the following order:

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: According to the plaintiff-appellants Jas-want Singh is the land-owner. He submitted the return under the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, Jaswant Singh, plaintiff, has two adult sons namely Bhup-inder Singh and Bharpur Singh on the appointed date. Bhupinder Singh, plaintiff No. 2 had six family members and Bharpur Singh, plaintiff No. 3 had seven family members on the appointed date. It is averred that each of the adult son of the land owner was entitled to a separate permissible unit. Considering the strength of the members of the family of plaintiff No. 2 he was entitled to retain 8 1/4 hectares as permissible area and Bharpur Singh. plaintiff No. 3 was entitled to retain 9 1/2 hectares of land as permissible area. If proper calculations are made then the plaintiff-appellant had no surplus area. It is also averred that the land in dispute in the year 1970 was barani and had no source of irrigation. The Collector declared land measuring 2. 13 hectares of land as surplus. The Collector did not make correct calculations. He allowed the land-owner seven hectares of land. He also allowed to each adult son seven hectares of land. The plaintiff-appellant filed an appeal against the order of the Collector before the Commissioner. The Commissioner vide his order dated 20-12-1978 accepted the appeal and set aside the order dated 14-4-1976 passed by the Collector and remanded the case to the Collector for a fresh decision. In terms of the orders of the Commissioner dated 20-12-1978 the Collector on 1-12-1980 passed the second order. The plaintiff-appellant preferred an appeal against the order dated 1-12-1980 to the Commissioner. The Commissioner again dismissed the appeal on 11-10-1982.

(3.) AGGRIEVED against the order dated 11-10-1982 the plaintiff-appellant filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner which was dismissed on 17-9-1984. It is averred that plaintiff No. 2 is aged 51 years and plaintiff No. 3 is aged 46 years and their families consists of six and seven members respectively. According to the law, they are all entitled to permissible area of 814 and 9!4 hectares of land. If proper calculations are made no area is surplus. It is contended that the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Sangrur did not consider and discuss the evidence on record regarding the permissible area of the members of the families of plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3. He did not apply his mind that considering the strength of the members of the family they were entitled to more permissible area. Although the order of the Senior Sub-Judge shows that the point was raised but no finding was given by the Senior Subordinate Judge. It was contended that if the permissible area of the members of the families of plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 is correctly worked out then plaintiff-appellants have no surplus area. The order of the Collector is plainly illegal. Senior Subordinate Judge in this case in para 13 of the judgment had discussed the evidence on record regarding the date of birth of family members of plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3. There is no finding at all on the point raised by the plaintiff before the Senior Subordinate Judge. This shows that the Senior Subordinate Judge had not applied his mind on the vital question raised before him. So, the order of the Senior Subordinate Judge cannot stand the test of scrutiny and the said order is liable to be set aside.