RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In order to appreciate the point which has been raised in this petition of Ram Singh, it is essential to set out the indisputable facts of this controversy between him and the State of Punjab acting through its authorities under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) The petitioner, a landowner of village Nutt in Bhatinda tehsil, considering that his holding did not exceed the permissible limit did not submit any return under Section 32-D of the Act which requires details of holdings in excess of such limit and also the area he desires to retain or in respect of which he claims exemption from the ceiling. Under Section 32-C the Collector is empowered in the absence of such returns to collect the requisite information under Section 32-D for himself through such agency as he may deem fit. On receiving this information, the Collector has to prepare a draft statement under Section 32-D showing "among other particulars, the total area or land owned or held by such a person, the specific parcels of land which the landowner may retain by way of his permissible limit or exemption from ceiling and also the surplus area." In this draft statement the petitioner was shown to have held 16.5 standard acres of land as surplus in excess of the permissible limit. The petitioner thereupon filed objections to this draft statement under sub-section (3) of Section 32-D. It may be mentioned here at this stage that in the draft statement prepared on the information gathered by the Collector through his agency, the advice of the Pepsu Land Commission appointed under Section 32-P has to be included. It was amongst the objections raised by the petitioner, that he had planted an orchard in some of his land and it should have been exempted from the ceiling, and further, that he should have been allowed to select the area which he could retain by way of his permissible limit. By his order of the 18th of April, 1960, the authority acting as the Collector dismissed these objections and paragraph 5 of this order which has been attacked in this petition is to this effect :-

(3.) It would be convenient at this stage to say that in pursuance of Section 32-K, the provisions of the Act are not applicable, inter alia, to "orchards where they constitute reasonably compact areas". The Pepsu Land Commission constituted under Section 32-P is under a statutory duty in Pursuance of clause (c) of sub-section (4) of Section 32-P to "advise the State Government with regard to exemption of lands from the ceiling in accordance with the provisions of Section 32-K". According to the view adopted by the Collector the petitioner not having filed his return under Section 32-B, claiming exemption from ceiling it did not devolve on him to seek the advice of the Pepsu Land Commission with regard to this exemption which is claimed under Section 32-K. In a Division Bench of Mahajan J. and myself in Sampuran Singh v. The State, 1964 66 PunLR 406 it was held that "the provisions of Sections 32-B, 32-BB and 32-C of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, when read together, make it clear that the person making default in filing the return is still entitled to have it determined whether he is entitled to claim any exemptions under Section 32-K of the Act. The provisions of Section 32-C lay down that the failure to furnish a return does not affect the right of the landowner to claim exemptions under Section 32-K and he must be afforded an opportunity before an order is made. The Collector cannot proceed to make his own investigation into claim for exemptions, the claim for exemption can be investigated only by the Pepsu Land Commission whose advice he can seek. He is bound to include the advice of the Pepsu Land Commission in the preparation of the final draft statement." The ratio decidendi of this authority thus makes it clear that even though there is a default on the part of the landowner to submit a return under Section 32-B the Collector when he gathers the information through his own agency with regard to the holding, exemptions, etc., of the landowner, is bound to include the advice of the Pepsu Land Commission in respect of the exemption which is claimed. To reiterate, the petitioner when he had been informed about the draft statement submitted objections and claimed exemption from ceiling in respect of his orchard. Under sub-section (2) of Section 32-D, the draft statement has to include the advice of the Pepsu Land Commission. The view adopted by the Collector is, therefore, clearly erroneous and contravenes the provisions of law and the authority of the Division Bench in Sampuran Singh v. The State . The learned Advocate-General, appearing for the State, does not contest this proposition but he submits that the subsequent orders passed by the appellate and revisional authorities disentitle the petitioner from claiming the relief that the order of the Collector should be set aside by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.