DALIP SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a landowner in village Kakrala, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala. There is in force the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (Pepsu Act No. XIII of 1955) (hereinafter called "the Act"), which is intended to provide for certain measures of land reform. The landowner, according to the Act, is entitled to retain land only within a permissible limit which has been fixed at 30 standard acres and where such 30 standard acres are converted into ordinary acres, the permissible limit is 80 ordinary acres. The Collector, Agrarian Reforms, Nabha, by his order dated the 5th January. 1960 declared 22.69 standard acres of the petitioner as surplus. It is not disputed that in declaring the surplus area, the Collector relied on the Jamabandi prepared in the year 1951-52 and as a matter of fact this position has been accepted by the State in para 11 of its return. The allegation of the petitioner is that in the Jamabandi for the year 1951-52, he is shown as owning land of different qualities including Chahi, Barani, Banjar Qadim and Ghair Mumkin, making a total of 411 Bighas whereas the State in its return claims that the total area owned by the petitioner really was 449 Bighas and 19 Biswas. It is not necessary to go into this controversy for the purposes of the present writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner after the order of the Collector passed on the 5th January, 1960, preferred Civil Writ No. 746 of 1961 in which one of the pleas raised by him was that there had been a family partition in the month of June, 1955, between him, his sons and his wife, who constituted a joint Hindu family and that if partition was accepted, the area held by each of the owners was less than the permissible area. The writ petition was disposed of by Shamsher Bahadur, J. on the 10th April, 1962 with an observation that the department should decide the case in the light of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as Jagan Nath and others V. The State of Punjab and others, 1962 64 PunLR 22). The matter again came up before the Collector, after the decision of the High Court and he by his order dated the 3rd April, 1963, held that the alleged partition amongst the members of the joint Hindu family, if at all had taken place on the 14th September, 1956, whereas the relevant date before which a transfer could be recognised was the 21st August, 1956, as fixed in Section 32-FF of Punjab Act No. 16 of 1962. There was thug no modification directed by the Collector in his order passed on the 5th January, 1960, and consequently the surplus area as declared earlier was allowed to stand. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, who dismissed the same on 28th May, 1963. The sole question that appears to have been agitated before him was that the alleged transfer amongst the members of the family had taken place before the relevant date and, therefore, must be given effect to. It had also to be decided what the relevant date was. He did not accept the petitioner's contentions and in rejecting the appeal relied on a judgment of this Court in Balwant Singh etc. V. The State, 1963 PunLJ 49C.W. No. 1553 of 1961, decided on the 16th January ). It was held there that the effective date for declaring surplus area was the 21st August, 1956, and it could not be shifted to the 30th October, 1956, when the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956, came into force. A revision petition filed by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner also met with no success. He then preferred Civil Writ No. 549 of 1964, in which validity of the order of the Financial Commissioner dismissing the revision petition on the 1st February, 1964, was challenged. This writ petition was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of this Court. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner raised a contention before the Financial Commissioner that the Jamabandi for the year 1955-56 was the latest and should have been given effect to. Accordingly, it was claimed that keeping in view the valuation in the light of the various qualities of land held by the petitioner, the total area owned by him came to 372 Bighas in all. After Civil Writ No. 549 of 1964 was dismissed by the Division Bench in limine, the petitioner again made an application to the Financial Commissioner for review of the order dated the 1st February, 1964, against which the writ petition had been dismissed. The Financial Commissioner by his order dated the 10th April, 1964, dismissed the review petition holding that there was no inherent power in him to review a case already decided by him under the Act. Reliance in this respect was placed by him on a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as Deep Chand and another V. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundur and another, 1964 66 PunLR 318). Hence, the present writ petition. It is unfortunate that this Court is deprived of the assistance of the State which after filing the return has not chosen to be represented by a counsel or to produce the record. It is a case for the issue of a writ of certiorari and the State was under an obligation to have made the whole record available to this Court. I do not see way at one time the State thought it necessary to file a return and then not to participate in further proceedings relating to this writ petition. I am, therefore, constrained to dispose of the case after hearing the learned counsel for petitioner alone.

(3.) Mr. Kesho Ram Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised three contentions. Firstly, the Collector and other officers acting under the Act erred in relying upon Jamabandi for the year 1951-52 in determining the surplus area when Jamabandi for the year 1955-56 was available. It is contended that in evaluating the land, the relevant time at which the value is to be determined is immediately before the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956 came into force i.e. on the 30th October. 1956. He, in this connection, relied on a Single Bench judgment of this Court reported as Maghar Singh V. The Punjab State and others, 1967 PunLJ 245), where P.C. Pandit, J. has held that according to 32-NN of the Act, the relevant date for evaluating the land of any kind is the 30th October, 1956, whatever be the position of Jamabandis. Section 32-NN is in the following terms :-