PUNJAB STATE Vs. MAGHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is clear from the provisions of Section 32-NN of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (Pepsu Act 13 of 1955), that for the matter of land held on the date of the coming into force of that Act, which is October 30, 1956, evaluation of the land is to be taken on that date. So the authorities under the Act have to take evidence as to what is the evaluation of the land which they are considering having regard to the nature of the land on that particular date. Explanation to rule 5 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1958, says - "For the purpose of determining the class of any land, the entry in the latest Jamabandi relating to such land shall be conclusive." In the present case the land of the respondent was to be evaluated as on October 30, 1956, and what was done was to take into consideration as conclusive evidence the entries in the Jamabandi of 1954-55. The learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the explanation to rule 5 goes beyond the scope of Section 32-NN of the Act and the respondent, landowner, could not be shut out from leading evidence other than the last Jamabandi of 1954-55 to prove the nature and class of the land for the matter of determination of the valuation. In the approach that the learned Judge has made, he has set aside the orders of the revenue authorities under the Act against the respondent determining certain area in his hands as surplus and has by his order of August 25, 1967, directed the authorities to proceed to deal with the case in the light of the observations made by the learned Judge in his judgment.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant-State here contends that after all it is the Jamabandi immediately available that has to be taken into consideration and that may be done, but when explanation to rule 5 says that will be conclusive evidence, that goes against the provisions of Section 32-NN according to which evaluation of the land is to be done on October 30, 1956, in a case like the present. So other type of evidence, if available, may be led by the owner of the land to prove the class of land that he has and the valuation that is to be attracted to his land before it is determined whether there is, if any, surplus area with him. In the circumstances, there is no justification for interference with the order of the learned Judge. This appeal of the State is dismissed with costs, counsel's fee being Rs. 60/-. I agree. Appeal dismissed,