Ranbir v. State of Punjab

Order is announced."

9.    An  appeal  filed  by  the  petitioners  before  the  learned Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur was disposed of vide order dated 12.06.1986, by observing as under :- "I have heard the counsel for the appellants and the ADA on behalf of the State. The declaration filed by Sahib Ram was taken up and Collector Agrarian, Fazilka determined on 9.2.1977 that  Sahib  Ram  held  land  measuring  879  K  5  M (19.2925)  in  village  Dhinganwali,  Shergarh  Waryam Khera and Sherwala on the appointed day. 42 K 6 M (1.1776) was surplus under the old Act and was reduced (I hope Collector Agrarian, Abohar, has taken steps to vest the same in the State). Allowing 9. hectares for a family  of  7,  the  Collector  declared  8.149  hectares  as surplus. Though Sahib Ram was a co-shares with four others, the Collector declared specific Khasra numbers as surplus (total 380-K 1 M). The appeal preferred by Sahib  Ram  was  dismissed  on  4.6.1982  by  Additional Commissioner and as such the order has become final for all intent and purposes, against the big landowner. Teg Ram  son  of  Arjun  Ram,  Datta  Ram  s/o  Sanwal  Ram, Ranbir  Singh  son  of  Sanwal  Ram  and  Sanwal  Ram preferred an appeal against the determination of surplus area of Sahib Ram claiming to be tenants entitled to TPA. The  Commissioner  did  not  find  any  other  person  as bonafide  tenant,  rejected  their  claims  and  held  that Sanwal Ram was the only one who should be heard by the  Collector.  The  Collector  Agrarian,  Abohar,  has passed  the  impugned  order  thereafter  and  hence  the present appeal. I find that apart from Sanwal Ram his two sons are also appellants. I am afraid these two persons have no locus standi to file the appeal as their contentions stand rejected by the Commissioner, Ferozepur on 17.1.1984. The present order shall not confer any right or benefit to the sons of Sanwal Ram. The  Collector  Agrarian,  Abohar,  got  a  chhant prepared afresh in which he found that Sahib Ram was cultivating only 44 K – 10 M of land. No other land was under his cultivation at present. Having his finding on ththis Chhant, he allowed only 1/5  share out of 44 K – 10 M as TPA and kept remaining area as surplus. I have seen the Chhant prepared by the Patwari and copies of Khasra  Girdawari  presented  by  the  counsel  for  the appellant. Regarding 44 K 10 M declard surplus, there is no doubt that Sanwal Ram is a tenant on the land since 1970. As Collector Fazilka, on 9.2.1977 selected specific khasra  numbers  (and  not  a  share  in  joint  holding  as surplus), Sanwal Ram becomes the tenant under Sahib Ram for the entire 44 K 10 M of land. However,  I  agree  with  the  finding  of  fact  by Collector  Agrarian,  Abohar,  that  in  Rect.  No.190-191 (the khasra numbers referred to by counsel). Sanwal Ram was  no  longer  a  tenant.  The  land  was  purchased  by Sanwal Ram and his sons from the big land owner. As such  Sanwal  Ram  ceased  to  be  a  tenant  and  is  not entitled to any declaration of TPA of Rect no.190 and

191.  Sanwal  Ram  has  by  his  own  conduct  and  action ceased to be continuous tenant before determination of TPA  and  cannot  make  any  such  claim.  This  claim  of Sanwal  Ram  is  rejected  being  not  in  cultivating possession  of  various  khasra  numbers  in  Rect.  No.190 and 191. The purchase made by him and his sons hit by Section 11(5) of the Act and such purchase suffer 21.1.71 is to be ignored for the purposes of Land Reforms Act. The appeal is partly accepted and Sanwal Ram is declared entitled to 44 K 10 M as TPA. He is directed to appear  before  the  Collector  Agrarian,  Abohar,  on

15.7.1986  who  will  make  the  necessary  order  by amending  Annexure  `A'  attached  to  order  dated

9.2.1977."

10.    A further revision petition filed by the petitioners before the learned Financial Commissioner was dismissed vide order dated 06.05.1993 (Annexure P-1)

11.    From  a  perusal  of  the  findings  returned  by  the  authorities below, it  is evident that the petitioners were  not the tenants  on the land regarding which, they are claiming T.P.A. Once the petitioners were not tenants on the land on the appointed date under the 1972 Act, therefore, they are not entitle  to claim the %.$.A. 3urthermore, it a""ears that the claim of the "etitioners was re/ecte  earlier on 1*.01.1).4 b# learne  2ommissioner, 3ero4e"ur  in  a""eal  file   b#  the  "etitioners  along  with  their  father Sanwal Ram, wherein it was hel  that the "etitioners ha!e no locus standi. $etitioners ha!e con!enientl# conceale  the sai  or er  ate  1*.01.1).4.

11.1 A Division Bench of this Court in Jagraj Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 1978 PLJ 59., has held as under:- ''A plain reading of sub-section (1) of sections 4 and 7 leads to a clear conclusion that the Act does envisage the concept of tenants' permissible area and a person who does not otherwise own land, has a right to reserve and retain land in his occupation as a tenant as tenants' permissible area subject to the extent detailed in sub-section (2) of section 4. Under sub-section (1) of section 5 only such tenants of the land are to be recognised for the purposes of the Act who occupied it as such on the appointed day, which under sub-section (1) of section 3 is 21st (24th) of January, 1971. In view of these clear provisions in the Act, the argument of the learned counsel for the State that the petitioners cannot assert their claim qua any land of respondents Nos. 3 to 5 as tenant's permissible area under the Act cannot be sustained. (emphasis supplied)'' 1(.    Still  further,  learne   counsel  for the "etitioners has  faile   to islo ge  the  fin ing  of  facts  recor e   b#  the  authorities  below  in  the im"ugne  or ers nor it has been in icate  as to how the im"ugne  or ers are "atentl# illegal or "er!erse. 1,.    As  regar s  the  reliance  "lace   u"on  b#  the  "etitioners  in Munish  Ram's  case  5su"ra6,  it  is  obser!e   that  the  sai   /u gment  is istinguishable on facts as the same has been ren ere  un er the "ro!isions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 whereas, the present case has been dealt with under the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972.

14.    In  view  of  the  afore-mentioned  facts  and  circumstances, there is  no  scope  for any interference by this Court in the impugned orders, resultantly,  the  instant  writ  petition  fails  and  the  same  is,  accordingly, dismissed.

15.    All pending application/s, if any, shall also stand closed.

September 02, 2024          (HARSH BUNGER) gurpreet                JUDGE

IN RANBIR STATE O CORAM Present : HARSH B certiorari passed by dated 12. Ferozepur (Annexur 2. private re provisions wherein 8 appeal file Authority THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG AND OTHERS Versus OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Gulshan Sharma, Advoc for the petitioners. Mr. Navneet Singh, Senior D BUNGER, J. Petitioners have filed the in of the Constitution of India, i, for setting aside the order d y the learned Financial Comm .06.1986 (Annexure P-2) passe r Division, Ferozepur and a re P-3) passed by the learned Col Briefly, the surplus area cas espondents was decided by t s of the Punjab Land Reforms A 8.31.49 hectares of first quality ed by one landowner (Sahib Sing y vide order dated 04.06.1982. Page 1 NJAB AND HARYANA AT GARH CWP-7341-1993 (O& Date of Decision: 02.09.20 …Petitioners s …Respondents HARSH BUNGER ate D.A.G., Punjab. nstant writ petition under Artic seeking a writ in the nature dated 06.05.1993 (Annexure P missioner (Appeals) Punjab; or ed by the learned Commission also the order dated 31.05.19 llector (Agrarian), Abohar. se of predecessor in interest of the learned Collector, under Act, 1972 (in short `the 1972 A land was declared surplus and gh) was dismissed by the Appell of 9 &M) cles of P-1) rder ner, the the ct') d an High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh 2.1 It is the case of the petitioners that they along with their father- Sanwal Ram (since deceased) were cultivating 190 Kanals-3 Marlas of land as tenants under the private respondents (big landlord) since 1953-54. Petitioners claim that their possession over the afore-said land was un- interrupted. According to the petitioners, only 44 Kanals-10 Marlas of land was allowed as Tenants Permissible Area (in short `TPA'), out of the afore-said total land of 190 Kanals-3 Marlas and their claim as regards the remaining land was rejected by the learned Collector (Agrarian), Abohar, vide order dated 31.05.1984 (Annexure P-3) on the ground that since they had purchased the rest of the land from the land owners vide registered sale deed dated 23.10.1981, therefore, they ceased to be tenants on the purchased portion of the land. 2.2 Being aggrieved against the afore-said order dated 31.05.1984 (Annexure P-3), the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, which was also dismissed vide order dated 12.06.1986 (Annexure P-2). 2.3 A further revision petition filed by the petitioner before the learned Financial Commissioner, was also dismissed vide order dated 06.05.1993 (Annexure P-1). 3. In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court for the relief, as noticed here-in-above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders are wrong, perverse and are therefore, liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioners has been rejected only on the ground that their father-Sanwal Ram, ceased to be a tenant on the land on account of his purchase of the land from the big land-owner. It is submitted High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh that mere purchase by tenant of land which is under cultivation of the tenants would not deprive them of their status as tenants. It is further submitted that the petitioners are poor persons and they have no other source of livelihood except the land under their possession, which according to the petitioners, is continuing since 1953-54. It is next contended that the case of the petitioners is covered by a judgment dated 18.04.1975 (Annexure P-4) rendered by this Court in CWP-716-1966 titled as Munshi Ram and another vs State of Punjab etc. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State has opposed the submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners by submitting that the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands. It is submitted that petitioner No.3 is not the son of Sanwal Ram, rather he is the son of