GURNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a landowner of village Kahangarh Bhutna, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, has filed the present petition impugning the orders Annexure P-1, P-3 and P-6.

(2.) THIS petition arises out of the following facts : The petitioner, who is a big landowner, was proceeded against, under the provisions of Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Pepsu Act'). The Collector vide his order dated 23rd July, 1963 declared an area of 17.68 Std. Acres as surplus. The petitioner then filed a revision before the Commissioner under section 32D(4) of the Pepsu Act and the order dated 23rd July, 1963 was set aside vide order dated 29th January, 1969 and a direction was made by the Commissioner that the matter be re-decided on merit. It is the conceded position that between the two dates i.e. 23.7.1963 and 29.1.1969 the surplus area in the hands of the petitioner was duly utilized. On remand, the Collector Agrarian went into the controversy and vide order dated 17th January, 1971 (Annexure P-1 to the petitioner) re-determined the surplus area and came to the conclusion that 17.68 std. acres of land was once again to be declared as surplus. The appeal taken to the Commissioner against the aforesaid order was also rejected on 20th October, 1971. The petitioner thereafter approached the Financial Commissioner who vide his order dated 8 June, 1972 (Annexure P-2 to the petition) set aside the order of the Commissioner and remanded the same to him for re-decision. The matter was again taken up before the Commissioner in pursuance of the remand order and the Commissioner vide his order dated 17th July, 1973 (Annexure P-3 to the petition) rejected the appeal. The petitioner aggrieved by the order against him, referred to above, filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner and he vide his order dated 22nd April, 1982 (Annexure P-6 to the petition) dismissed the revision petition on two grounds; Firstly that no revision petition was maintainable and, Secondly that as the land in question had been utilized between the years 1964, 1965 and 1968 i.e. long before coming into force the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Punjab Act') no fresh determination in the hands of the petitioner was required to be made and in the light of the fact that the land stood utilized, the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ranjit Ram v. The Financial Commissioner Revenue Punjab and others, 1981 PLJ 259 was not applicable to the facts of the present case. The petitioner has accordingly come to this court by way of the present petition.

(3.) AS against this, Mr. Hemant Gupta, the Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, has urged that as the land stood utilized prior to coming into force of the Punjab Act, the exception carved out in Ranjit Ram's case (supra) was not available and that in any case once the order of 23rd July, 1963 had been set aside it was incumbent on the petitioner to move the authorities for restitution of the land that had been taken away from him and not having done so, could not claim any benefit now.