GURDIAL SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gurdial Singh and his brother Zora Singh petitioners have filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the orders of the revenue authorities rejecting their application for acquiring proprietary rights under their cultivation.

(2.) On 8th August, 1966, the petitioners filed an application before the Assistant Collector, First Grade, for acquisition of proprietary rights in 31 Kanal 16 Marlas of land comprised in Rectacle Nos. 4, 6, 7, 14, 15 of Killa No. 191 situate in village Makorar Sahib against Sadhu Singh son of Gind Singh, respondent No. 5, on the plea that Sadhu Singh was a big landlord. The petitioners were tenants under him on the land in dispute since 1956. Sadhu Singh respondent contested this application and pleaded that he was owner of only half-share of the land in dispute and the other half was owned by his son Yashkaran Singh. Both of them were allottees to this land being refugees from Pakistan. Previously ownership of half of the land allotted to him had been transferred in favour of his mother Smt. Ganga Kaur. On her death, her estate was inherited by Yashkaran Singh. He did not own more than 45 standard acres of land which he was entitled to possess, being a refugee. The petitioners were not in continuous possession of the land in dispute since 1956. The petitioners examined village Patwari and got proved from him copies of Jamabandis for the year 1961-62 pertaining to the land of village Makorar Sahib and Khasra Girdawaris of this land. They also produced Jamabandis for the years 1959-60 and 1962-63 of land of village in Badsikri Kalan as also Jamabandi for the year 1961-62 pertaining to village Kurail. Gurdial Singh made his own statement. He admitted that Sadhu Singh was an allottee and he did not know as to whether Yashkaran Singh son of Sadhu Singh was the owner of half-share of the land in dispute. Previously the petitioners used to cultivate land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1507/1337, 1576/1339 and 1519/1340. But they had made application for acquiring proprietary rights in Killa Nos. 191/4, 6, 7, 14, 15, only Girdawaris for the years 1961-62 to 1965-66 have been produced to show that the petitioners were tenants on these Killa numbers. However, the petitioners have not led any evidence to prove that during the proceedings for consolidation of holdings, these Killa numbers had been carved in lieu of Khasra Nos. 1507/1337, 1576/1339 and 1519/1340. So they have failed to prove that the petitioners were cultivating these Killa numbers from 1956 onwards for a minimum period of six years. Similarly they could not prove that Sadhu Singh was a big landowner and owned more than 40 standard acres of land. The rehabilitation authorities had allotted half of the land entered in the name of Sadhu Singh in the revenue record to his mother Smt. Ganga Kaur. As such, she had become the owner of half of the land. Thereby, the holding of Sadhu Singh had become less than 40 standard acres which he was entitled to hold as a refugee landowner. Later, on the death of Smt. Ganga Kaur, this land was inherited by his son Yashkaran Singh. So, the Assistant Collector held that the petitioner had failed to prove that they had been in possession of the land in dispute since Kharif 1956 and to establish that Sadhu Singh and Yashkaran Singh who had also become a party to these proceedings with the permission of the Assistant Collector were big landowners. He, therefore, dismissed the application of the petitioners. Their appeal to the Collector failed and the findings of the Assistant Collector were affirmed. He also held that the petitioners had failed to establish the identity of the land under their cultivation and also that the respondents were big landowners. Aggrieved the petitioners went up in revision before the Commissioner. There they made an application for permission to produce additional evidence. The learned Commissioner found merit in that application. He was of the view that under section 25 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short the Act), there was a presumption in favour of the petitioners that they had during the consolidation proceedings received the land in dispute in lieu of the land previously cultivated by them. He also came to the conclusion that Sadhu Singh had owned and possessed more than 70 standard acres of land and was prima facie a big landowner. He, therefore, made recommendation to the learned Financial Commissioner that the petition be accepted and the orders of the Collector and Assistant Collector be set aside.

(3.) Shri Ashok Bhan, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners, has raised three contentions before me : (i) that the petitioners were in cultivating possession of the land in dispute since 1956. During the consolidation proceedings new killa numbers were carved and Sadhu Singh had been allotted land in lieu of his previous holdings in the shape of killas. The petitioners were put into possession as tenants on the land mentioned in the application which was given to Sadhu Singh in lieu of the land which was previously in possession of the petitioners. Under Section 25 of the Act, there is a presumption that the land which was under the cultivation of the petitioners had been given in lieu of the land previously cultivated by them; (ii) that Sadhu Singh and Yashkaran Singh respondents 5 and 6 were big landowners owning more than 30 acres of land each; and (iii) that the learned Financial Commissioner gravely erred in declining the recommendation of the learned Commissioner for permitting the petitioners to lead additional evidence. None of these arguments has impressed me.