MAGHAR SINGH Vs. THE PUNJAB STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 2nd January, 1961, the Collector, Agrarian Reforms, Sangrur, Respondent No. 4, declared agricultural land measuring 11 Standard Acres and 11 3/4 Units as surplus area with Maghar Singh Petitioner. This order was confirmed on appeal by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Respondent No. 3, on 14th August, 1961, and later by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, at Chandigarh, Respondent No. 2, in revision on 19th November, 1963. Against these orders, the Petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE main argument urged by the learned Counsel was that about 100 bighas of land belonging to the Petitioner was Thur Sem (waterlogged) and was lying waste and uncultivated (Khali), but even then it was evaluated as Nehri and Rosli Barani while declaring his surplus area, with the result that great injustice had been done to the Petitioner. The reply filed by the State regarding this objection was that the evaluation of the Petitioner's land had been correctly made in accordance with the provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955; (hereinafter called the Act), and the Pepsu Tenancy and; Agricultural Lands Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). According to the explanation to Rule 5, the entries in the latest Jamabandi on the relevant date were to be conclusive for the purpose of determining the class of any land. The relevant date, according to the return, was 21st August, 1956, and on that date the Jamabandi for the year 1954 -55 was the latest available. In that Jamabandi, the land in dispute was not shown to be Thur Sem or Khali as alleged by the Petitioner.

(3.) ACCORDING to this section, which was inserted by Punjab Act, No. XVI of 1962, the land owned by a person immediately before the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956, had to be seen for evaluating it for converting into standard acres. The date of the commencement of the above -mentioned Second Amendment Act, 1956, was 30th of October, 1956. Admittedly, therefore, this was the relevant date, and not 21st August, 1956 as mentioned in the return filed by the State, for evaluating the land. In other words, for evaluating the Petitioner's land, the Collector, Agrarian Reforms, had to see its kind immediately before 30th of October, 1956. According to the Petitioner, the Khasra Girdwaries from 1955, upto 1963, showed that the land had remained Khali (Uncultivated). It could not be shown Thur Sem in the revenue records, because such entries were ordered to be recorded for the first time in pursuance of the Punjab Land Revenue (Thur, Sem, Chos and Sand) Remission and Suspension Rules, 1960. Before these rules came into force, even if the land was Thur or Sem, it was, according to the Petitioner, shown as Khali and not entry with respect to its being waterlogged was made either in the Jamabandi or Khasra Girdwari. The Jamabandi for the year 1954 -55 relied on by the State would not, therefore, correctly show the kind of the land immediately before 30th of October, 1956. The explanation at the end of Rule 5 of the Rules says: