PRITAM DASS Vs. BANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition by Pritam Dass (landowner) under section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act against the judgment and decree dated 23.9.1981 passed by the Commissioner, Patiala, in a case of recovery of rent.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Pritam Dass filed a suit under section 77(3) (k) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Kharar, for recovery of Rs. 2000/- being 1/3rd share of produce in respect of the land measuring 37 Kanals 5 Marlas, situated in village Radiala, tehsil Kharar, district Ropar, in respect of crops from Rabi 1970 to Rabi 1971. He alleged that Saudagar Singh, respondent-defendant (since dead but his heirs have been impleaded as respondents) who cultivated the land in dispute during these crops had been paid 1/3rd share of produce. Saudagar Singh (defendant) admitted the cultivation of the land during the said period and indicated his willingness to pay the share of produce according to the Goshwara Paidawar. After hearing the parties, Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide his judgment and decree dated 23.4.1979, decreed the suit for Rs. 1028.21 on the basis of Goshwara Paidawar. Aggrieved Pritam Dass went in appeal before the Collector, claiming the additional amount of Rs. 971.79 paise on the plea that the share of produce was correctly worked out as Rs. 2000/- and the Goshwara Paidawar prepared by the Assistant Collector was not according to the law and rules. The appeal was dismissed by the Collector, Ropar, by his judgment dated 29.7.1980. Pritam Dass went in revision petition before the Commissioner who by his judgment and decree dated 23.9.1981 dismissed the same. Pritam Dass has now come in revision petition before me.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties and looked into the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the subordinate revenue Courts have erred in rejecting the balance claim of Rs. 971.79 by misconstruing the provisions of law, rules and administrative directions contained in the Punjab Land Records Manual and the Punjab Land Administration Manual etc; that they have erroneously ignored the cogent and authentic expert evidence produced by the plaintiff-landowner; that they have arbitrarily and illegally adopted the outmoded norms of Goshwara Paidawar prepared by the Office Kanungo on the basis of 'Bandobast Jhar' pertaining to the year 1915 for adjudging the yields of the crops and that section 17 of the Punjab Tenancy Act referred to by the Commissioner for appointing a referee for division or appraisement of the produce, in a disputed case like this, was irrelevant. He has particularly referred to section 12 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, read with provisions contained in rule 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1953. Shri Sahni, the counsel for the petitioner has stressed that relying on the 'Bandobast Jhar' is not a conclusive proof of the correct appraisal of the produce. For determination of 1/3rd share of crops, the revenue officers are required to take into account the quality, quantity and prevailing prices as contained in rule 9 of the Rules 1953, ibid. Shri Achhra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has on the other hand stressed that it was on the failure of the landowner to support his contention with any law; that the Assistant Collector was justified in determining the 1/3rd share of produce in accordance with Goshwara Paidawar and as such he (the landowner) was not entitled to the amount of Rs. 971.79 and the assessment of the produce as Rs. 1028.21 made by the Assistant Collector, duly upheld by the Collector and the Commissioner could not be increased or enhanced.