BACHITTAR SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Bachittar Singh, who was a displaced person was allotted 84 standard acres and 12-3/4 units of land in village Rajuwala, Tehsil Faridkot. Subsequently, on 20th June, 1955 the petitioner entered into an agreement to transfer 6/7th share of this land to his four sons and his wife and to give effect to this agreement he got a report entered in the roznamcha on 29th October, 1955. On 22nd January, 1958 the petitioner got a tamliknama executed and registered in favour of his sons and wife with regard to this very land.

(2.) The Collector, Agrarian, Faridkot, issued a draft statement under Section 32-D(1) of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter called the Act) in which land measuring 35.20 standard acres was shown as surplus area with the petitioner. The very next day the petitioner filed objections to this draft statement under Section 32-D(2). These objections were accepted by respondent No. 2 by order dated 26th May, 1961 and he came to the conclusion that there was no surplus area with the petitioner. The papers were, consequently, filed and consigned to the record room. The matter, however, did not end there and on 10th February, 1964 respondent No. 2 made a reference to respondent No. 1 wherein it was brought out that the report in the roznamcha had been tampered with and could not be given effect to and that the petitioner could not transfer the land to his sons and wife as he was only an allottee at the time of the transfer. It was further stated in this reference that the gift dated 22nd January, 1958 was not covered by Section 32-FF of this Act. In view of this, orders of the Commissioner were solicited and the records of the case were forwarded to him. The Commissioner, Patiala Division, by order dated 26th October 1965 accepted the reference and after setting aside the order of the Collector dated 26th May, 1961 remanded the case to Collector, Faridkot, for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Being dissatisfied with this order, the petitioner has moved this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India on the allegations that this order was illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and wholly void.

(3.) The petition was contested by the respondents through the affidavit of Shri Aridalan, Under Secretary to Government, Punjab, Revenue Department, and it was stated that on coming to know that wrong orders had been passed the Collector, Agrarian Reforms, made a reference to the Commissioner which had been rightly accepted under Section 32-D(4) of the Act.