MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present is a revision petition under Section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, read with Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, against the order dated 26.6.1996, passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot in a surplus area case.

(2.) THE facts of this case are, that, Mukhtiar Singh son of Lal Singh resident of Panjgara in, District Faridkot, had filed a declaration in form 'A' with the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, on 3.10.1973, as required under Section 5 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, read with Rule 5 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1973. Mukhtiar Singh, in his declaration, had stated that his one son named Boota Singh, was major on the appointed date i.e. 24.1.1971. The Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, had accepted the contents of this declaration; and, vide his order dated 5.3.1976 had filed the surplus area proceedings, by concluding that there was no surplus area with Mukhtiar Singh. Against this order, one Sucha Singh son of Deva Singh, resident of Village Panjgarain Kalan, had filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, mainly on the ground that Mukhtiar Singh had wrongly been given benefit of an adult son, who was minor on the appointed day, as, his date of birth as per the school record was 10th March, 1955. The Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, vide his order dated 5.10.1976, had remanded the case to the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, with a direction to finalize early the pending enquiry before him, regarding the age of Boota Singh, on the appointed day. The Collector (Agrarian), after considering the evidence led by both the sides, vide his order dated 25.4.1977, had concluded, that, Boota Singh was not major on 24.1.1971, and as such, Mukhtiar Singh, the land-owner, was not entitled to claim a separate unit for his son Boota Singh. Thus, an area measuring 3.41 Hectares was declared as surplus in the hands of Mukhtiar Singh. Despite two chances having been given, to intimate the details of the area with Khasra numbers to be declared surplus with him Mukhtiar Singh had failed to do so. So, the Collector (Agrarian) vide his order dated 25.4.1977, had declared an area measuring 71 Kanals and 5 Marlas as surplus, comprised in the Khasra numbers as mentioned in the aforesaid order. Against this order, Mukhtiar Singh had filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, but the same was rejected vide Commissioner's order dated 24.1.1979. Aggrieved by this order, Mukhtiar Singh had filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab; who, vide his order dated 24th September, 1985, had accepted the same; the operative part of which reads as follows :-

(3.) IN pursuance of the Commissioner's order dated 10.10.1994, the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, vide his order dated 31.3.1995 had declared an area measuring 70 Kanals 9 Marlas equivalent to 3.41 Hectares of first quality land, comprised in the Khasra numbers, as detailed in the Annexure to the said order, which were conveyed by Mukhtiar Singh. Before this, the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, had adjourned the case on 14.11.1994 to 15.11.1994; on which date, Mukhtiar Singh had sought extension to convey his choice regarding Khasra numbers to be declared as surplus, which was allowed, and the case was adjourned to 23.11.1994, on which date, Mukhtiar Singh had conveyed his choice, which was accepted by the Collector (Agrarian). Aggrieved by this order, Balbir Singh etc. had filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, which was accepted vide Commissioner's order dated 26.6.1996; the impugned order was set aside and the case was remanded to the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, with a direction, that, he should declare those Khasra numbers as surplus, "which are in the possession of respondent (Mukhtiar Singh), equivalent to the land declared surplus vide impugned order." The present revision petition (not appeal as stated) is directed against this order.