PIRTHI SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed under Section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, directed against the order dated 2.3.1994 passed by Sh. S.R. Bunger, IAS, Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur vide which he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner in limine.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the surplus area case of Radha Ram, son of Lachhman Ram resident of village Baganiwali, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur was decided under the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 by the Collector (Agrarian), Fazilka vide his order dated 25.1.1977. After leaving permissible area of 7 hectares of first quality land to the landowner, an area measuring 4.8349 hectares of first quality was declared as surplus with the landowner. Thereafter, under the protracted litigation, the case underwent various vicissitudes and ultimately an area measuring 4.8439 hectares of first quality was again declared surplus with the landowner, Radha Ram by the Collector (Agrarian) Fazilka vide his order dated 30.7.1993 and ordered for taking further action under Section 9(1) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. Feeling aggrieved with the above order of Special Collector (Agrarian), Fazilka, petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, on the main ground that they have purchased the land measuring 40 kanals comprised of Khasra No. 84-M/22/1/1/(2-0), 21(8-0), 83M/23(8-0), 24(8-0), 25(8-0), 87-M/3/1(2-0), 4/1(2-0), 5/1(2-0), situated in village Hiranwali, Tehsil Fazilka by Om Parkash and Partap singh, sons of Bhagirath and Smt. Savitri Devi wife of Pirthi Singh, on 2.6.1978, and that area should be exempted. Commissioner, after hearing the petitioners through their counsel dismissed the appeal in limine vide his order dated 2.3.1994. Now, they have come up with the present revision petition along with the stay application before this Court.

(3.) I have considered the case properly. I am of the opinion that the present petitioners have been victimized because when they purchased the land in 1978, it was part of the reserved area of the landowner. Subsequently, some more land was purchased presumably from the land, which as per the order of the Collector, was part of the surplus pool. I direct the Collector to decide the case afresh keeping in view the dates of various purchases made by various vendees. In my opinion, the land going to the surplus pool should be the one which was purchased last because by that time the area falling in reserve pool and surplus pool was clearly known. I am in agreement with the contention of the petitioners that the land which they purchased in 1978 was a part of reserve area of landowner and the same remained the part of reserve area uptil the year 1993 when the impugned order was passed. With these observations, I dispose of the present revision petition. It is, however, made clear that surplus area measuring 4.8354 hectares of 1st quality may not be diminished or reduced in any way. Petition dismissed.