HARNEK SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Harnek Singh and his two brothers claim entitlement of land which has been declared as surplus in the hands of their father Gurdit Singh.

(2.) Gurdit Singh, the father of the petitioners, being in possession of land in excess of the permissible area was declared to be in possession of 6.08 standard acres as surplus area. Under Section 32-J of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act), the surplus area "shall be at the disposal of the State Government". Under sub-section (2) of Section 32-J, the State Government may "frame a scheme for utilising the surplus area by allotment to tenants willing to cultivate land personally or to landowners or tenants owning or holding land not exceeding five standard acres in order to make their holdings equal to five standard acres, and to landless agricultural workers...............". A scheme has been framed called the "Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1960" by which a worker can be allotted surplus area of the land "if he has been cultivating separately for two years prior to the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955,.............. of his father or grandfather............." and his "cultivation as such is recorded in the Khasra Girdawari". The petitioners, who are the sons of Gurdit Singh, claim allotment of the surplus area as landless agricultural workers in accordance with the scheme framed under sub-section (2) of Section 32-J. The claim found favour with the Naib-Tehsildar who allotted to the petitioners 6.08 standard acres of the land declared surplus in the hands of their father. The case was, however, reviewed at the instance of the Collector and the Commissioner and the learned Financial Commissioner in the order which is sought to be impugned in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India passed on 12th of June, 1964, has directed that the allotment so made should be set aside being in contravention of the scheme framed under sub-section (2) of Section 32-J of the Act.

(3.) It is not disputed that the petitioners are not shown to have been cultivating the land in the Khasra Girdawari. The learned Financial Commissioner has accordingly held that the petitioners cannot be regarded as workers to whom the land could be allotted under the scheme. I see nothing unreasonable or illegal in the order of the learned Financial Commissioner. By no stretch of imagination can the petitioners be regarded as landless agricultural workers. They form a joint Hindu family with their father in whose hands the land has been treated as a unit and an area of 6.08 standard acres has been declared to be surplus on this basis. In order to claim entitlement under the scheme the petitioners have to show that they have been in cultivating possession of some land according to the Khasra Girdawari. The learned counsel submits that there is other evidence besides that of the Khasra Girdawari and this should have been taken into account. It is also submitted by him that the rule in so far as it does not take account of other evidence is ultra vires. I do not think that this argument has any substance. The landless agricultural workers or tenants are the persons to whom surplus land may be disposed of by the State Government. A scheme, however, has to be framed for this purpose and there is nothing in the provisions of the scheme which goes contrary to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 32-J of the Act. I do not see any force in the other submission of the learned counsel that the provision is discriminatory. The petitioners not having established their claim for disposal of surplus land according to the rule have been rightly denied this right.