RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE THROUGH THE CRO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order of mine shall dispose of all the four revision petitions as the substantial questions of law and facts are similar in these petitions. A copy of the order may be placed on each case.

(2.) -3. These revision petitions under Section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 are directed against the order dated 23.11.1993 passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners. Briefly, the facts are that the surplus area case of Shri Ram Parkash, son of Chanda Ram, resident of village Malookpura, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur, was decided as per order of the Collector, Fazilka, dated 22.4.1977 and an area measuring 10.9315 hectares of first quality land was declared as surplus with him. An appeal filed against this order by Sh. Ram Parkash was accepted by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, as per his order dated 27.10.1980 and the case was remanded to the Collector Agrarian, Fazilka, for deciding the same afresh after hearing all the concerned parties. In compliance of this, the Collector decided this case on 3.12.1981 and an area measuring 8.5649 hectares of first quality land was declared as surplus with him after allowing an area measuring 2.3666 hectares of first quality of tenant's permissible area. Against this order, two separate appeals were filed before Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, one by Sh. Sanjay Nagpal and Anita, as heirs of Ram Parkash and the second one by Raj Kumar etc. as heirs of Jagan Nath son of Chanda Ram. These appeals were decided by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, as per his order dated 20.6.1988 (in two separate orders) and the case was remanded to the Collector Agrarian, Abohar with the direction that the case be decided afresh keeping in view the family partition of the landed property inter se the parties as pressed by the Special Collector Agrarian, District Ferozepur and the impugned order dated 16.2.1990 has been passed and an area measuring 5.9327 hectares of first quality land has been declared as surplus. It was pleaded before the Special Collector Agrarian that Ram Parkash had expired on 13.3.1987 and Smt. Anita and Sanjay Nagpal being his heirs, they be allowed a unit of permissible area of 7 hectares of first quality land each and if this is allowed, they are left with no surplus area with them. It was further pleaded that Chanda Ram was a big landowner. He has migrated from Pakistan to India and after his death on 9.10.1950, the landed property owned by him was mutated in favour of his five sons viz. Charan Dass, Hans Raj, Jagan Nath, Kundan Lal and Ram Parkash in equal shares by natural succession but as Chanda Ram had executed a Will dated 14.1.1949, bequeathing his property in favour of his three sons only and ignoring his two other sons, viz. Kundan Lal and Ram Parkash because Kundan Lal and Ram Parkash had received their shares in the landed property through a family settlement prior to the partition of India and after partition they were allotted lands in Sonepat District of Punjab, as such, Kundan Lal and Ram Parkash have been given undue share in the inheritance of Shri Chanda Ram contrary to the provisions of the Will dated 14.1.1949 and by adding their shares to the property owned by them, the surplus area cases of Kundan Lal and Ram Parkash have wrongly been decided. It was further pointed out that as Charan Dass, son of Chanda Ram and Gulshan Rai, Raj Kumar, Bhim Kumar and Hari Krishan, sons, Vidya Devi, widow and Krishna Devi, daughter of Jagan Nath, son of Chanda Ram have obtained a civil court decree dated 15.4.1977, passed by Sub Judge, Fazilka, against Ram Parkash and Kundan Lal to the effect that the entire land in the names of Ram Parkash and Kundan Lal, as recorded in the record-of-rights of villages Ghatinawali Bodla, Chak Roranwala and Ganjuwana, shall be the ownership of Shri Charan Dass etc., decree-holders and this land will no longer vest in the name of Ram Parkash and Kundan Lal. The Special Collector Agrarian has wrongly ignored this civil court decree and has taken into consideration the shares of Ram Parkash and Kundan Lal in these three above mentioned villages for deciding their surplus area cases. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Chanda Ram executed a registered Will on 14.1.1949 giving the above said details regarding family partition whereby he bequeathed his land in five villages of Ferozepur District in favour of three sons, namely, Charan Dass, Jagan Nath and Hans Raj in equal shares. Further, Chanda Ram died on 9.10.1950 and his inheritance went to his all five sons in equal shares by natural succession. He further argued that the relationship of all the brothers was so cordial and at that time nobody could have thought over about the coming into operation of Agrarian laws and the same system was going on uptil the coming into operation of Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. Further arguing the case, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both Ram Parkash and Kundan Lal while furnishing their declaration in Form 'A' under the provisions of Punjab Land Reforms Act, clearly mentioned that the land allotted in lieu of land left in Pakistan are exclusively owned by their other three brothers, namely, Jagan Nath, Hans Raj and Charan Dass. They also submitted Power of Attorney to the same effect and from the perusal of the declaration these facts are mentioned in the records. Further, in the year 1977, on the basis of earlier family partition and as per the Registered Will of Chanda Ram, a civil court decree was passed in favour of heirs of Jagan Nath and Charan Dass vide judgment/decree dated 15.4.1977 of the Sub-Judge Ist Class, Fazilka, copy of which is attached with the lower court file, whereby only pre-existing rights have been recognized and no new right or title has been created. The mutation on the basis of Civil Court decree has already been sanctioned. The counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1974 PLJ page 374 - Gurditta Singh v. State of Punjab, which reads as under :-