SURJIT INDER SINGH SIBIA Vs. SPECIAL COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order, dated May 20, 1963 (Annexure 'A'), Shri S.R. Vij, Special Collector, Punjab, declared 456 Standard Acres and 6-1/2 units of the petitioner's land in village Munshi Wasla and a few other villages in tehsil and district Sangrur, as surplus. The claim of the petitioner for certain exemptions was negatived by the Special Collector on the ground that the objector could not produce any evidence in support of his objections. Except for the relief which had already been granted to the petitioner by the PEPSU Lands Commission, no further relief was granted by the Special Collector. In the revision petition before the Commissioner, the only ground which is stated in the order of the Commissioner, dated September 1, 1964, to have been urged was that Schedule 'A' containing the valuation statements for Sangrur district, was ultra vires Rule 5 of the PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1958, and section 2(i) of the PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (13 of 1955) (hereinafter called the Act). No other point was urged before the Commissioner. This writ petition has been filed for setting aside and quashing the order of the Special Collector and of the Commissioner (Annexures 'A' and 'B'), on the aforesaid ground relating to the vires of Schedule 'A' as well as on the ground that the Collector acted in an arbitrary and illegal manner in disallowing the exemptions claimed by the petitioner, relating to sailab land and gardens in villages Ramnagar Sibian and Sangrur. A further ground about the petitioner being entitled to exemption of banjar land has been taken in the petition. It is somewhat unfortunate that though this petition has been pending for more than two years, the respondents have not cared to file any return to the rule issued in this case as long ago as on December 14, 1964. Mr. Kuldip Singh rightly contends that in these circumstances, the Court would be justified in the absence of any other supervening consideration to presume that all statements of fact made in the writ petition are admitted by the respondents to be correct.

(2.) I cannot, however, find my way to permit the raising of any point in this case which was not raised before the Commissioner at the revisional stage and which might otherwise necessarily imply some question of fact on which no finding is available in any order. So far as the exemptions claimed before the Special Collector are concerned, they were disallowed on the solitary ground that no evidence in support of the claim of the petitioner had been produced before the Special Collector. In such a situation, I do not think it to be proper to allow the claim of the petitioner in respect of those exemptions in the writ proceedings merely on the assumption that the facts stated in the petition are deemed to have been proved simply because of the absence of the return. Mr. Kuldip Singh has strenuously argued that he is entitled as of right to the exemption of banjar land because its inclusion in the land which was a surplus area amounts to violation of his fundamental right guaranteed to him in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. There could be force in this argument, if some authority had found as a fact that a particular piece of the petitioner's land, was in fact banjar and if it was also clear from the record before me that the said piece of land has not been excluded from consideration. Since that is not the position here, I am unable to entertain the claim for banjar land for the first time in this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) This leaves for consideration the only question of law which appears to have been urged and pressed before the Commissioner. Reliance is placed in support of the contention, on the judgment of Mahajan, J. in Waryam Singh v. The Collector (Agrarian Reforms) Sangrur, etc., 1964 CurLJ 1 . Waryam Singh's chahi holding comprised of chahi khalis as well as chahi niain land, that is ordinary well-irrigated and manured well irrigated land. It was the common case of the parties that chahi niain land would be more valuable in terms of standard acres in view of the definition of that expression contained in sub-section (i) of section 2 of the Act. In spite of this, in the valuation statement for Sangrur district contained in Schedule 'A', only one valuation of entire chahi land was provided. On that ground, it was held that Schedule 'A' so far as it related to Sangrur district, was ultra vires Rule 5 as well as the definition of the standard acre in section 2(i) of the Act. The attention of the learned Commissioner was invited to the judgment of Mahajan, J. in Waryam Singh's case . He repelled the plea on the ground that the Schedule had been held to be ultra vires only in cases of chahi niain and chahi khalis land and inasmuch as the petitioner's land did not comprise of any such tracts, the law laid down in Waryam Singh's case was not of any substantial assistance to the petitioner. Mr. Kuldip Singh submits that the reason for which Schedule 'A' was held to be ultra vires or void is wholly irrelevant and that the Commissioner was bound by the judgment of this Court holding Schedule 'A' to be ultra vires section 2(i) and rule 5, that the Commissioner should, therefore, have struck down the impugned order of the Special Collector on that short ground. It appears to me that the whole of Schedule 'A' was not struck down as such by this Court in Waryam Singh's case and that it was only so much of the Schedule as related to chahi land which was struck down on the ground that out of the genus chahi, the species niain and khalis had not been separately provided though they admittedly differed substantially in valuation. The judgment of this Court in Waryam Singh's case to the above effect cannot invalidate Schedule 'A' in so far as it relates to nehri chahi, nehri barani, salab and other lands described therein. I, therefore, hold that there is no error of law apparent on the face of the order of the Commissioner in so far as he held that in the absence of a claim for any special kind of chahi land, the judgment of this Court in Waryam Singh's case, could not be invoked by the petitioner.