LAWS(P&H)-1965-11-11

RAJINDER PARSHAD Vs. PUNJAB STATE

Decided On November 08, 1965
RAJINDER PARSHAD Appellant
V/S
PUNJAB STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two appellants Rajindar Prashad and Khub Chand, are owners of 795 acres of agricultural land, the whole of it under tenants, in village Odian, Tehsil Fazilka of Ferozepur District. On April 15, 1953, the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (Punjab Act 10 of 1953), hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act', came into force. It gave protection to tenants against ejectment except on grounds specified in Section 9. Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of section 9 reads-

(2.) ON September 28, 1956, the appellants filed 34 applications against respondents 6 to 39 under section 14-A of the Act, on the basis of the ground of ejectment in section 9 (1) (i), for their ejectment from 58 standard acres area reserved by them under section 5 (1) of the Act. The applications were of course resisted by respondents 6 to 39. It appears that all the applications were consolidated and evidence was recorded in one application, applicable to the decision of all.

(3.) THE only evidence that was recorded was of two witnesses, Om Parkash, Patwari of the Patwari Circle in which village Odian is situate, and Ram Rakha Mal, Mukhtar-i-am of the appellants. The tenants-respondents, in cross-examination, put the entries in the Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit D. 1, from Kharif 1951-Rabi 1952 to Kharif 1954-Rabi 1955 to the Patwari with regard to four fields Nos. 958, 1757, 1778, and 1780. The whole argument before the revenue authorities, the Financial Commissioner, the Commissioner, the Collector, and the Assistant Collector, respondents 2 to 5, has centred round those field numbers and the entries in the Khasra Girdawari in regard to the same and the statement of the Patwari based on those entries in that respect. There were other matters which came in the evidence of the Patwari as also the Mukhtar-i-am of the appellants, but those ceased to be of consequence by the time the case was before the Commissioner, respondent 3. So for the purposes of this appeal all that needs to be taken into consideration is the Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit D. 1, in which are the entries about cultivation and crop sown in those four field numbers, and the statement of Patwari Ram Parkash with regard to the same. 3a. The question before the revenue authorities was whether the appellants were in self-cultivation of those four field numbers at the commencement of the Act, that is to say, on April 15, 1833? In the Punjab Land Records Manual, Chapter IX, instruction 9. 1 provides, in the absence of any special order, that inspection of each harvest shall commence in the case of Kharif from October 1, and in the case of Rabi from March 1. Unless the State Government appoints other date by a notification for any local area 'agricultural year' commences on June 16 in any year according to section 3 (14) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Act 17 of 1887 ). It is common knowledge that in the normal course Kharif crop is not sown until about or after June 16 in any year, though the inspection of Kharif crop commences on and from October 1 in that year. The reason why inspection takes place a few months after the sowing, is obvious for by then the crop grows sufficiently and undeniably admits of inspection. Every revenue officer, who has had any experience of field work in the matter of crop inspection, knows as a fact that Kharif crop is not sown until about or after June 16 in a particular year. Column 2 in the Khasra Girdwari, Exhibit D. 1. shows the name of the owner of the land, and column 3 concerns the name of the cultivator. In Exhibit D. 1 the appellants are shown as owners in column 2. In column 3 the entry is 'khud Kasht Maqbuza Malkan,' of which the English translation is 'self-cultivation, in possession of owners'. This is the entry with regard to all the four fields Nos. 958, 1757, 1778, and 1780. Column 5 concerns the kind or type of land, and the entry as to those four field numbers is 'gair Mumkin Johri', of which the English translation is 'unculturable pond. ' Columns 6, 7 and 8 are of crop cultivation in Kharif 1951-Rabi 1952, and the entry is again 'gair Mumkin Johri', which means that no crop was sown in any of those four fields numbers in that year. Columns 9, 10 and 11 relate to crop in Kharif 1952-Rabi 1953. In Kharif 1952 field No. 958 is again shown 'gair Mumkin Johri', but in Rabi 1953 it is 'gair Mumkin Haddarori', of which the English translation is 'unculturable bone deposit area'. Fields Nos. 1757 and 1780 are shown in both crops as 'gair Mumkin Johri'. In regard to field No. 1778 the entry in Kharif 1952 is '2 Kanals Chari (fodder) sown by Sucha Singh', respondent 20, and the rest as before 'gair Mumkin Johri'. In Rabi 1953 the entry is again 'gair Mumkin Johri' of the whole area of this field number. So in Kharif 1952 and Rabi 1953 except for 2 Kanals of fodder crop sown by Sucha Singh respondent 20 in field No. 1778, the rest of those four field numbers remained as before with no crop cultivated in the same by anybody, and in fact the entry is 'unculturable land in the shape of pond' in regard to all the fields numbers, except that in regard to field No. 958 in Rabi 1953 it is shown 'unculturable bone deposit area'. Columns 12 to 14 are of Kharif 1953-Rabi 1954. With regard to fields Nos. 1757, 1778, and 1780, the entry continues to be 'gair Mumkin Johri' for both crops. In Rabi 1954 the entry is same for field No. 958. But in Kharif 1953 Bajra is shown to have been sown in 1 Kanal of this ,held number by Hazara Singh respondent 18. There is also entry of another 2 Kanals area under crop, but that is not decipherable and possibly may read as cotton crop. Columns 15 to 17 concern Kharif 1954- Rabi 1955. In regard to fields Nos. 1757, 1778, and 1780, the entry continues to be the same as 'gair Mumkin Johri'. As to field No. 958 in Kharif 1954, it is shown under Gowara crop, the whole of it, sown by Hazara Singh respondent 18. The entry in regard to Rabi 1955 also seems to be under crop by the same respondent. It is clear that between Kharif 1951 and Rabi 1955 fields Nos. 1757, and 1780 have all the time been shown as unculturable pond. This land was never cultivated by anybody. The entry in column 3, saying 'khud Kasht' (self-cultivation) , with regard to those two field numbers is utterly meaningless, for, where the details of the crop are required to be given, no crop is shown there, and instead the land is shown to have remained lying vacant as unculturable pond. The entry in column 3 by itself has no meaning for it gains meaning only with reference to entries in subsequent columns showing crop sown for each harvest season whether Kharif or Rabi. In regard to those two field numbers, no crop having been entered to have been sown in the same, the entry in column 3 of self-cultivation of the owners is a contradiction in terms and is factually against the only entry or entries which show what crop was sown in the land. No crop having been sown in the land, there was no question of land having been under self-cultivation. It was in fact an unculturable pond. In so far as field No. 1778 is concerned, the position between Kharif 1951 and Rabi 1955 is exactly the same except for one crop of Kharif 1952, during which only two Kanals area out of the total area of this field number was under fodder crop sown by Sucha Singh respondent 20. No part of this field number even is shown in this Khasra Girdawari to have been cultivated and sown by the appellants. Even if the entry of Kharif 1952 is to be taken into consideration, it establishes cultivation of a part of this field number by a tenant of the appellants, namely, Sucha Singh respondent 20, and not self-cultivation of that area by the appellants. As regards the remaining field No. 958, the entry from Kharif 1951 to Rabi 1953 is again unculturable pond or bone deposit area, so that during that period the land was not cultivated by anybody and was in fact unculturable being under pond or bone deposit area. The position of the entry in column 3 showing the appellants in self-cultivation or Khud Kasht is meaningless in the face of the entry in the crop columns which alone can show whether land was or was not cultivated and by whom. In Kharif 1953 this field number was under the cultivation of Hazara Singh respondent 18, again a tenant of the appellants, it was not under cultivation by the appellants and could not be described as under self-cultivation. The position reverts in Rabi Rabi 1954 to unculturable pond. In Kharif 1954 and Rabi 1955 it is again shown under cultivation of Hazara Singh respondent 18. This field number was never cultivated by the appellants. It remained either unculturable pond or bone deposit area or cultivated by one of the appellants' tenants, namely, Hazara Singh respondent 18. In section 2 (9) of the Act there is definition of the expression 'self-cultivation' and it says that "self-cultivation' means cultivation by a land-owner either personally or through his wife or children, or through such of his relations as may be prescribed, or under his supervision. " No part of the four field numbers was ever thus in the self-cultivation of the appellants. The whole of the area was unculturable pond or bone deposit area except that two Kanals of fodder crop was sown by Sucha Singh respondent 20 in field No. 1778 in Kharif 1952, and Kharif crop was sown in field No. 958 in Kharif 1953, and crop was sown in Kharif 1954 and Rabi 1955 by Hazara Singh respondent 18. As stated, both Hazara Singh respondent 18 and Sucha Singh respondent 20 are tenants of the appellants. No part of the area of any of the four field numbers was in the self-cultivation of the appellants, and only a small area, as shown, was in cultivation of two tenants of the appellants, which was thus not in the self-cultivation of the appellants. The entry in the Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit D. 1, has to be read as a whole and particularly the entry with regard to the cultivation has only meaning with reference to the columns which show cultivation of crop for each separate harvest. If, as in this case, there was no cultivation of crop in greater part of the area of four field numbers, the entry of self-cultivation in column 3 has no meaning. In regard to the small area that was cultivated by the two tenants of the appellants, the entry as 'self-cultivation' of the appellants is not according to the actual crop sown and by the person who sowed it. No revenue officer experienced in crop inspection and entries in Khasra Girdawaries in regard to crop inspection could possibly have read the entries in the Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit D. 1, with regard to those four field numbers as under self-cultivation of the appellants. No judicial mind instructed and trained in judicial approach can read the entries about those four field numbers as self-cultivation of the appellants. I have taken the whole period from Kharif 1951 to Rabi 1955 to emphasise that the area of the four field numbers has never been under the self-cultivation of the appellants. Actually what is to be seen, as already stated, is what was the position in regard to cultivation of those four field numbers on April 15, 1953. It has already been stated that Kharif crop in any year is sown about or after June 16. So Kharif 1953 crop was sown about or after June 16, 1953. This was apparently after April 15, 1953, thus after the commencement of the Act. The harvest current at the commencement of the Act, that is to say, on April 15, 1963, was Rabi 1953. Rabi crop is harvested in April. When the Act commenced on April 15, 1953, Rabi 1953 was being harvested. So it is this harvest of Rabi 1953 that was current on April 15, 1953. It is this harvest alone which is relevant for a finding whether or not the four field numbers, under consideration, were under cultivation, and if so, under whose cultivation. The entries in the Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit D. 1, are clear that field No. 958 was 'gair Mumkin Haddarori', and the remaining three field numbers were 'gair Mumkin Johri'. So all the four field numbers were unculturable, one as bone deposit area and the other three as pond. Not one of those field numbers was cultivated by anybody, let alone the appellants. Those field numbers having been unculturable, and in fact, not cultivated, in Rabi 1953, the entry in column 3 of Exhibit D. 1, as has already been pointed out, that the same were under the self-cultivation of the owners of the land, is obviously not in conformity with the column showing crop sown in Rabi 1953. The statement, as I have already pointed out, has no meaning. In my opinion, no Revenue Officer experienced in the revenue work could ever possibly read all the four field numbers in Rabi 1953 as under self-cultivation of the appellants. This is the only harvest, as I have said, that is relevant, though it has been shown on detailed reference to harvests from Kharif 1951 to Rabi 1955 that not one of those field numbers was under the self-cultivation of the appellants. A small area, as explained in Kharif 1952, a crop before Rabi 1953, was cultivated by Sucha Singh respondent 20, and another small area was cultivated in Kharif 1953, a crop after Rabi 1953, by Hazara Singh respondent 18. The two respondents are tenants of the appellants. Even those small areas, though not relevant, were cultivatted by the tenants and were not under self-cultivation of the appellants. This is the state of entries in the Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit D. 1. The statement of Patwari Ram Parkash is based on entries in this Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit D. 1. In the examination-in-chief, he stated that on the date the application, Exhibit P. 1, for reservation of land was made by the appellants, there was no area of land under their self-cultivation, but there was some area owned by them which was 'gair Mumkin Chhappar', which means it was unculturable. In cross-examination he said, field No. 958, which was 'gair Mumkin Khal' meaning unculturable water channel became culturable in Kharif 1953, a harvest, as pointed out, after Rabi 1953 and thus after the commencement of the Act, and it was cultivated by Hazara Singh respondent 18, a statement which is exact repetition of the entry in the Khasra Girdawari. Then he proceeded to stay that in Rabi 1953, this field No. 958 was in possession of and under cultivation of the owners. This statement follows entry in column 3 of the Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit D. 1, but does not conform to the real entry in it which shows whether any crop was or was not sown in this field number. As stated, that entry shows that no crop was sown in this field number in Rabi 1953 and it was unculturable bone deposit area. He admitted that Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit D. 1, was prepared by him. In re-examination, he stated that field numbers 1779 and 1780 are unculturable pond and thus not capable of cultivation, though in Kharif 1952, Sucha Singh respondent 20 sowed fodder crop in two Kanals area out of field No. 1779. As to field No. 958, he said that it is unculturable pond and thus not capable of cultivation, but in Kharif 1953, Hazara Singh respondent 18-cultivated it under the owners. Lastly, as regards field No. 1757 he said, it is not capable of cultivation. This statement, in re-examination by him, is exact reproduction of the state of affairs to be found in the entries in the Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit D. 1, and it is consistent with his earlier statement in examination-in-chief that on the dale of the application Exhibit P. 1, for reservation of land by the appellants, there was no area under their self-cultivation, though there was some area in their possession which was unculturable pond. In the cross-examination, the rest of his. statement is again, what is stated in the Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit D. 1, except as to field No. 958, with regard to which he stated that in Rabi 1953, it was in the possession and cultivation of the owners. It has been shown that this statement only partially depicts the entry in the Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit D. 1, in column 3, and does not depict the real entry for cultivation in column 10 of this document concerning Rabi 1953. In re-examination, the witness corrected himself to bring his statement in conformity with the entry in the Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit D. 1, even with regard to this field number concerning Rabi 1953. The statement of this Patwari, as such, is of no more consequence than the entries in the Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit D. 1. It discloses, state of affairs with regard to none of those four field numbers anywise different than the state of affairs as shown in the Khasra Girdawari Exhibit D. 1. So the evidence before the revenue authorities was: (i) that not one of those field numbers was under the self-cultivation of the appellants, (ii) that some small area in harvest before Rabi 1953 was cultivated by tenant Sucha Singh respondent 20 and another small area was cultivated by another tenant Hazara Singh respondent 18 in a harvest after Rabi 1953, and (iii) that in Rabi 1953, the crop current in April 1953 and on April 15, 1953 not one of those field numbers was cultivated by anybody, whether the appellants or their tenants. This was the state of the evidence which was considered first by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Fazilka, who was seized of the applications of the appellants for eviction of the tenants-respondents 6 to 39.