CHAMAN LAL Vs. HARBANS LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision petitions have been filed against the order of the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar dated 28.5.1998. Since the issue involved in all the revision petitions is the same, therefore, all the revision petitions are disposed of by one order, copy of each order be placed in each file.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Bihari Lal was the original landowner of the land in dispute. Said Bihari Lal died in the year 1982 leaving behind the respondents as the legal heirs. The petitioners were cultivating the land in dispute as tenants. The petitioners filed an application on 29.10.1991 for the purchase of land measuring 33 kanals 9 marlas, 26 kanals 9 marlas and 19 kanals 3 marlas situated in village Gullah, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Pathankot on the ground that the area under the tenancy of the petitioners was declared surplus and Bihari Lal, original landowner was a big landowner, as such the petitioners are entitled for the purchase of the land in dispute. The said application was contested by the respondents inter alia on the ground that the purchase application filed in Form 'Q' of the Punjab Security of Punjab Land Tenures Act, 1953 was time-barred in view of Section 15, proviso (ii) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, which provides that for the purchase of land the period of limitation for exercise of such a right shall be one year from the date of commencement of the Act i.e. 24.1.1972. Since the petitioners have not exercised their rights within one year from the date of the commencement of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, therefore, the purchase applications filed by the petitioners are liable to be rejected. It was also further submitted before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade that the petitioners never exercised such right of purchase during the life time of the original landowner i.e. Bihari Lal and after the death of Bihari Lal, the land was inherited by the respondents and they have become the small landowner, as such the petitioners are not entitled to purchase the land of small landowners. It was also further submitted that at no point of time, the surplus area was ever declared at the hands of Bihari Lal and there is no order passed by the agrarian authorities available on record and in the absence of any documentary evidence, the purchase application is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) AGGRIEVED with the order dated 3.1.1995, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector Gurdaspur and the Collector Gurdaspur vide order dated 25.10.1995 accepted the appeal and case was remanded for fresh decision. Against the order of the Collector, Gurdaspur, the respondents filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) after hearing both the parties and after perusing the record accepted the appeal holding that no cogent and convincing evidence has been brought on the record by the tenants to prove that suit land was the surplus land in the hands of Bihari Lal owner. The Patwari, who appeared in the witness box has admitted in his cross-examination that the report on which the tenant has relied upon regarding the factum of surplus area has stated that the said report was not signed by any revenue authority and that the land in question has never been allotted to any person. No order of agrarian authority has been placed on record to prove the factum of suit land as surplus. Even the petitioners/applicants categorically admitted in his statement which is available at page 19 of the file regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and further admitted that after the death of Bihari Lal it had already been entered in the names of the respondents. The Commissioner also held that the petitioners have failed to prove their locus standi to purchase the land by filing application under Section 18 of the Act. The Commissioner also observed that the Collector has passed a very cryptic, vague and non-speaking order and remanded the case in a mechanical manner. The Commissioner also further observed that if a party has failed to discharge its onus to prove their claim by leading evidence and showing the appropriate law he has to face the consequences thereof. The Commissioner observed that it is not proved that suit land is surplus land of Bihari Lal and after the death of Bihari Lal, the land has been mutated in the names of the respondents and they have become small landowners and further the application filed by the petitioners/tenants was also not maintainable being highly time-barred in view of Section 15 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. Consequently, the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Collector and order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Pathankot was upheld vide order dated 28.5.1998. Now the petitioners have come up before this Court against the order of the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar dated 28.5.1998.