Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh vs The Financial Commissioner on 3 May, 2012
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(1) LPA No. 381 of 2012 ( O&M )
Sukhdev Singh
.... APPELLANT
Versus
The Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh and others
.... RESPONDENTS
(2) LPA No. 397 of 2012 ( O&M )
Gurbachan Singh
.... APPELLANT
Versus
The Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh and others
.... RESPONDENTS
DATE OF DECISION : 03.05.2012
Present : Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Amit Kashyap, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate,
for the caveators-respondents No.7 and 8.
***
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This order shall dispose of two Letters Patent Appeals bearing Nos. 381 and 397 of 2012, which are arising from the common order dated 2.11.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby five separate writ LPA Nos. 381 and 397 of 2012 -2- petitions, including Civil Writ Petitions No.71 and 73 of 1986, filed by Bakhtawar Singh (now deceased), father of Sukhdev Singh (appellant in LPA No. 381 of 2012), and Gurbachan Singh (appellant in LPA No. 397 of 2012) along with two others, challenging the orders of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Patiala; Collector, Patiala; and the Financial Commissioner, Appeals, Punjab, Chandigarh, have been dismissed.
The appellants in the present cases are the tenants. They are challenging the validity of the reservation made by Niranjan Singh, a big land owner, under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Land Holdings Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1955') and claiming proprietary rights on the land under their tenancy.
The brief facts of the case are that on 11.5.1954, i.e. within the stipulated period of six months from the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as `the President's Act of 1953'), Niranjan Singh, the big land owner, filed declaration, reserving 30 standard acres of land, out of his land situated in village Kathgarh, Tehsil and District Patiala, for his self cultivation. On another application filed by the big land owner, the Collector Agrarian Patiala, vide order dated 27.5.1961 (Annexure P-4), declared 42.87 standard acres of land of Niranjan Singh, the big land owner, as surplus. Subsequently, on 26.4.1963, after coming into force of the Act of 1955, the Collector, Patiala, issued notification under Section 6 (1) of the said Act, with regard to the aforesaid reserved land. By that time, valuation of the LPA Nos. 381 and 397 of 2012 -3- above said land came to be 47.51 standard acres, as in the meantime, valuation of the land had increased due to change in the classification of soils as assessed in consolidation proceedings. Thereafter, the original tenant in LPA No. 381 of 2012 moved an application under Section 22 of the Act of 1955 for acquisition of the proprietary rights in 110 kanals 2 marlas of land belonging to Niranjan Singh, the big land owner. Similarly, the original tenant in LPA No. 397 of 2012 moved an application for acquisition of 29 kanals 8 marlas of land belonging to the said big land owner. The other tenants had also filed similar applications. The cases of all the tenants were on similar footings, which were disposed of simultaneously and by the separate common orders passed by the Financial Commissioner as well as the learned Single Judge.
The big land owner contested all the applications filed by the tenants. The Prescribed Authority, i.e. the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, vide order dated 14.11.1963 allowed the claims of the tenants in respect of part of the land and rejected their claims in respect of the remaining land on the ground that the same had been reserved by the land owner for self cultivation. The tenants filed appeals against the said order and the same were accepted by the Collector vide order dated 14.11.1964 on the ground that due opportunity had not been granted to the tenants to lead their complete evidence in order to substantiate their contentions. On remand, the prescribed authority, after affording full opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective claims, vide order dated LPA Nos. 381 and 397 of 2012 -4- 8.4.1965, granted the proprietary rights to the tenants in respect of certain khasra numbers on the ground that the said lands were not reserved by the land owner and the tenants had proved the subsistence of their tenancy on those khasra numbers before the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956, as well as in respect of certain other khasra numbers on the ground that the tenants had proved the subsistence of their tenancy for a period of 12 years preceding the commencement of the President's Act of 1953 till the date of filing of the applications.
Against the aforesaid order, the land owner as well as the tenants filed separate appeals. The Collector, vide order dated 30.12.1966, after setting aside the said order, remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority for fresh decision as to :
(a) whether reservation made by the land owner was valid and, if so, whether the same was covered by section 7-A (2) of the Act of 1955,
(b) whether any particular parcel of land had been held by the applicant-
tenant for 12 years continuously.
After remand, the Prescribed Authority passed a detailed order dated 29.1.1971 (Annexure P-1) holding that the reservation made by the land owner was valid, as the application was filed by him on 11.5.1954 and was, thus, within the stipulated period of six months. Regarding the second objection, it was held even the Banjar land could be included in the reserved area and reservation of Banjar land by the land owner, thus, cannot be said to be defective. Regarding the third objection, it was held that LPA Nos. 381 and 397 of 2012 -5- though originally the land owner had reserved 30 standard acres of land by filing application on 11.5.1954, i.e. within the stipulated period of six months from the commencement of the President's Act of 1953, but after consolidation, value of the reserved area was taken as 47.51 standard acres, because of increase of value between the period of reservation and the consolidation. Therefore, it was so notified on 26.4.1963.
After finding the reservation made by the land owner to be valid, the Prescribed Authority considered the second issue. Upon examining the revenue record and the other evidence available on record, it was held that the tenant was not in continuous possession of any khasra number for a period of 12 years preceding the commencement of the President's Act of 1953 and was thus not entitled to proprietary rights in any khasra number reserved by the land owner. In this regard, the Prescribed Authority noted that during this period, there were variations not only in the actual fields cultivated by the tenants but also in the actual area cultivated by the land owner. There were variations in the area under cultivating possession as well as khasra numbers. Therefore, it was held that the case was not covered under Section 7-A (2) of the Act of 1955. However, qua the area of land, over which the tenant was in continuous possession as well as qua the land which had not been reserved by the land owner, the proprietary rights were granted to the tenant.
Against the aforesaid order and other similar orders, only the tenants filed separate appeals. The Collector, vide order dated 20.12.1973 LPA Nos. 381 and 397 of 2012 -6- (Annexure P-2) and the similar orders in cases of other tenants, dismissed the appeals and affirmed the findings of the Prescribed Authority.
Feeling aggrieved against the orders of the Collector, the tenants filed separate revision petitions. The Financial Commissioner, by a common order dated 27.12.1984 (Annexure P-3) dismissed all the revision petitions.
Before the Financial Commissioner, the tenants again raised the similar points, i.e. the reservation of land was not valid on the grounds that
(i) the area could not have been reserved to the extent of 47.51 standard acres of land; (ii) the Banjar land could not have been included in the reserved area; and (iii) the reservation under the President's Act of 1953 could not have exceeded 60 ordinary acres. It was also argued that all the tenants had proved on record their continuous possession since 1941. The Financial Commissioner, after considering various submissions made by the tenants, vide order dated 27.12.1984 dismissed all the revision petitions, while holding as under :-
(i) The land owner had reserved 30 standard acres only, as per the provisions of the President's Act of 1953 as well as the provisions of the Act of 1955. By the time of issuance of notification of the reserved area on 24.6.1963, valuation of the land had increased, but the total land remained the same, therefore, the reservation done was not in excess of the limit prescribed under the Act of 1955.
(ii) Banjar land can also be included in the area selected by a land owner, as the definition of `land' under Section 32N (3) of the Act of 1955 LPA Nos. 381 and 397 of 2012 -7- included Banjar land and this definition is applicable to the whole of Chapter IV-A under the Act of 1955. It was further held that as per the Division Bench decision of this Court in Abdul Latif Khan v.
The State of Punjab and others, 1971 PLJ 197, Banjar land could be included in the reserved or permissible area, as far as the Act of 1955 is concerned.
(iii) The tenants could not show their continuous possession over the land in question for the requisite period of 12 years. Such continuous possession has to be shown in specific khasra numbers. In this regard, Jaisi Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and others, 1971 PLJ 116 was followed.
Still feeling aggrieved against the order of the Financial Commissioner, the tenants challenged the orders of the revenue authorities before this Court. The learned Single Judge, vide common order dated 2.11.2011, has dismissed the writ petitions filed by the tenants and affirmed the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
Before the learned Single Judge, the similar points, as raised before the revenue authorities, were reiterated. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 2.11.2011, did not find any force in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the tenants and affirmed the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
Now, in these appeals, in addition to the arguments, already raised before the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the revenue authorities had not taken into consideration the order dated 27.5.1961 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Collector Agrarian, LPA Nos. 381 and 397 of 2012 -8- whereby 42.87 standard acres of land being tenant permissible area was declared as surplus, and the land owner was left with 47.51 standard acres of land under Chapter II and 30 standard acres under Chapter IV-A of the Act of 1955 as landlord's reserved area. The new argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants for the first time in these appeals, in our opinion, is apparently without any substance. Firstly, this argument was never raised before the Prescribed Authority, the Collector and the Financial Commissioner; and secondly there were total seven cases filed by the tenants against the land owner. In all those cases, the tenants had been given proprietary rights over some part of the land claimed by them, while their applications had been rejected qua the area of land reserved by the big land owner within the permissible area of 30 standard acres. As per record, 43.03 standard acres of land for the tenants was the sum total of the land, over which they had been given proprietary rights in seven cases. This 43.03 standard acres of land did not include the area of land which had been validly reserved by the land owner under the Act of 1955, over which the tenants were also claiming proprietary rights. A finding of fact has been recorded that reservation of 30 standard acres of land was valid, as the same was reserved by the big land owner within the stipulated period of six months from the commencement of the President's Act of 1953 and he was legally entitled to reserve this area. By the time, notification of the said area was issued on 26.4.1963, valuation of the above said land came to be 47.51 LPA Nos. 381 and 397 of 2012 -9- standard acres, as in the meantime, valuation of the land had increased due to change in the classification of soils as assessed in consolidation proceedings. It is an admitted fact that at no point of time, there had been a change in the ordinary acres reserved by the land owner. Under Section 2 (i) of the Act of 1955, `standard acre' has been defined with reference to yield from, and quality of, the soil. In the present case, the major portion of the reserved area was Banjar, therefore, the value of the Banjar land has increased. It is an admitted fact that the area of ordinary acre was the same as it was reserved in 1955 and notified in 1963. Therefore, in this regard, neither the revenue authorities nor the learned Single Judge has committed any illegality while rejecting the contention of the tenants.
Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Banjar land could not be reserved either under the President's Act of 1953 or under the Act of 1955. This contention has been considered in detail by the Financial Commissioner as well as the learned Single Judge and, in our opinion, the same was rightly found to be without any substance. The President's Act of 1953 defines Banjar land in its definition clause in the same manner as defined in the Act of 1955. Chapter V of the President's Act of 1953 only talks about acquisition of Banjar land for a public purpose, which in no way means that Banjar land cannot be reserved as part of the `permissible area' either under Section 3 of the President's Act of 1953 or Section 3 of the Act of 1955. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Latif Khan's case (supra) has held that under the Act of 1955, LPA Nos. 381 and 397 of 2012 -10- Banjar land could be a part of the land reserved by the land owner as his `permissible area', as Banjar land was capable of being measured as ordinary acres. Further, Rule 5 of the PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1958 provides for a formula for the valuation of different types of Banjar lands. Therefore, it cannot be said that the big land owner, while reserving his `permissible area' could not include Banjar land.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Nemi Chand Jain v. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and another, 1963 PLJ 137. In this regard, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the said decision, which is under the Punjab Act, is not applicable to the cases under the Pepsu Act having particular reference to the definition of `standard acre' in Section 2 (i) of the Pepsu Act, which defined standard acre as a measure of land convertible with reference to the yield from, and the quality of, the soil, into an ordinary acre according to the prescribed scale.
Another argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants that the land owner had reserved more than 30 standard acres of land under the President's Act of 1953 is also devoid of any merit. All the revenue authorities have recorded a categoric finding that only 30 standard acres of land was reserved by the land owner at the time of declaration made by him on 11.5.1954. The argument that there was no evidence that 30 standard acres of land had increased to 47.51 standard acres has been rightly rejected LPA Nos. 381 and 397 of 2012 -11- by the revenue authorities, as there is a categoric and consistent finding of fact by all the courts that valuation of the land had increased during the period between reservation and consolidation operations. The finding of fact in this regard does not require any interference.
Another argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants that the land reserved by the land owner exceeded the permissible limit of half of the total land holding is also not tenable. Firstly, the categorical finding of fact is that the reservation made by the big land owner was valid reservation of 30 standard acres. Secondly, the calculation in the appeal that the total land of the land owner was 41.26 standard acres in 1953 is completely wrong, as this has been done by excluding the Banjar land. Even otherwise, such argument cannot be considered at the stage of appeal, because it is a question of fact and has to be determined by the revenue authorities. Moreover, this point was never raised by the tenants before the revenue authorities.
Learned counsel for the appellants has also tried to challenge the finding of fact with regard to 12 years continuous possession of the tenants. It has been argued that 12 years possession was not required to be shown before 1953, but what was to be shown was continuous possession for 12 years before exercising the right of purchase under Section 22 of the Act of 1955. In our opinion, in the present case, the tenants have not been able to adduce evidence regarding their possession for 12 years prior to the filing of application. In this case, the Prescribed Authority found as a fact LPA Nos. 381 and 397 of 2012 -12- that the tenants have failed to show their possession on the land reserved by the land owner, for requisite period of continuous 12 years, therefore, proprietary rights on such land cannot be given to them. On the other hand, qua the area of land, over which the tenants were found in continuous possession and which had not been reserved by the land owner, the proprietary rights were granted to the tenants. Therefore, the question raised by learned counsel for the appellants with regard to 12 years continuous possession preceding the commencement of the President's Act of 1953 does not arise, because in this case, on the date of filing of applications, the tenants were not even found in 12 years continuous possession.
In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, affirming the orders of the revenue authorities.
Dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
May 03, 2012 ( T.P.S. MANN )
ndj JUDGE