Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

As stated, both Hazara Singh respondent 18 and Sucha Singh respondent 20 are tenants of the appellants. No part of the area of any of the four field numbers was in the self-cultivation of the appellants, and only a small area, as shown, was in cultivation of two tenants of the appellants, which was thus not in the self-cultivation of the appellants. The entry in the Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit D. 1, has to be read as a whole and particularly the entry with regard to the cultivation has only meaning with reference to the columns which show cultivation of crop for each separate harvest. If, as in this case, there was no cultivation of crop in greater part of the area of four field numbers, the entry of self-cultivation in column 3 has no meaning. In regard to the small area that was cultivated by the two tenants of the appellants, the entry as 'self-cultivation' of the appellants is not according to the actual crop sown and by the person who sowed it. No revenue officer experienced in crop inspection and entries in Khasra Girdawaries in regard to crop inspection could possibly have read the entries in the Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit D. 1, with regard to those four field numbers as under self-cultivation of the appellants.

The harvest current at the commencement of the Act, that is to say, on April 15, 1963, was Rabi 1953. Rabi crop is harvested in April. When the Act commenced on April 15, 1953, Rabi 1953 was being harvested. So it is this harvest of Rabi 1953 that was current on April 15, 1953. It is this harvest alone which is relevant for a finding whether or not the four field numbers, under consideration, were under cultivation, and if so, under whose cultivation. The entries in the Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit D. 1, are clear that field No. 958 was 'Gair Mumkin Haddarori', and the remaining three field numbers were 'Gair Mumkin Johri'. So all the four field numbers were unculturable, one as bone deposit area and the other three as pond. Not one of those field numbers was cultivated by anybody, let alone the appellants. Those field numbers having been unculturable, and in fact, not cultivated, in Rabi 1953, the entry in column 3 of Exhibit D. 1, as has already been pointed out, that the same were under the self-cultivation of the owners of the land, is obviously not in conformity with the column showing crop sown in Rabi 1953. The statement, as I have already pointed out, has no meaning. In my opinion, no Revenue Officer experienced in the revenue work could ever possibly read all the four field numbers in Rabi 1953 as under self-cultivation of the appellants. This is the only harvest, as I have said, that is relevant, though it has been shown on detailed reference to harvests from Kharif 1951 to Rabi 1955 that not one of those field numbers was under the self-cultivation of the appellants. A small area, as explained in Kharif 1952, a crop before Rabi 1953, was cultivated by Sucha Singh respondent 20, and another small area was cultivated in Kharif 1953, a crop after Rabi 1953, by Hazara Singh respondent 18. The two respondents are tenants of the appellants. Even those small areas, though not relevant, were cultivatted by the tenants and were not under self-cultivation of the appellants. This is the state of entries in the Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit D. 1. The statement of Patwari Ram Parkash is based on entries in this Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit D. 1. In the examination-in-chief, he stated that on the date the application, Exhibit P. 1, for reservation of land was made by the appellants, there was no area of land under their self-cultivation, but there was some area owned by them which was 'Gair Mumkin Chhappar', which means it was unculturable.

In cross-examination he said, field No. 958, which was 'Gair Mumkin Khal' meaning unculturable water channel became culturable in Kharif 1953, a harvest, as pointed out, after Rabi 1953 and thus after the commencement of the Act, and it was cultivated by Hazara Singh respondent 18, a statement which is exact repetition of the entry in the Khasra Girdawari. Then he proceeded to stay that in Rabi 1953, this field No. 958 was in possession of and under cultivation of the owners. This statement follows entry in column 3 of the Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit D. 1, but does not conform to the real entry in it which shows whether any crop was or was not sown in this field number. As stated, that entry shows that no crop was sown in this field number in Rabi 1953 and it was unculturable bone deposit area. He admitted that Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit D. 1, was prepared by him. In re-examination, he stated that field numbers 1779 and 1780 are unculturable pond and thus not capable of cultivation, though in Kharif 1952, Sucha Singh respondent 20 sowed fodder crop in two Kanals area out of field No. 1779. As to field No. 958, he said that it is unculturable pond and thus not capable of cultivation, but in Kharif 1953, Hazara Singh respondent 18-cultivated it under the owners. Lastly, as regards field No. 1757 he said, it is not capable of cultivation. This statement, in re-examination by him, is exact reproduction of the state of affairs to be found in the entries in the Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit D. 1, and it is consistent with his earlier statement in examination-in-chief that on the dale of the application Exhibit P. 1, for reservation of land by the appellants, there was no area under their self-cultivation, though there was some area in their possession which was unculturable pond.

In the cross-examination, the rest of his. statement is again, what is stated in the Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit D. 1, except as to field No. 958, with regard to which he stated that in Rabi 1953, it was in the possession and cultivation of the owners. It has been shown that this statement only partially depicts the entry in the Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit D. 1, in column 3, and does not depict the real entry for cultivation in column 10 of this document concerning Rabi 1953. In re-examination, the witness corrected himself to bring his statement in conformity with the entry in the Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit D. 1, even with regard to this field number concerning Rabi 1953. The statement of this Patwari, as such, is of no more consequence than the entries in the Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit D. 1. It discloses, state of affairs with regard to none of those four field numbers anywise different than the state of affairs as shown in the Khasra Girdawari Exhibit D. 1. So the evidence before the revenue authorities was: (i) that not one of those field numbers was under the self-cultivation of the appellants, (ii) that some small area in harvest before Rabi 1953 was cultivated by tenant Sucha Singh respondent 20 and another small area was cultivated by another tenant Hazara Singh respondent 18 in a harvest after Rabi 1953, and (iii) that in Rabi 1953, the crop current in April 1953 and on April 15, 1953 not one of those field numbers was cultivated by anybody, whether the appellants or their tenants. This was the state of the evidence which was considered first by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Fazilka, who was seized of the applications of the appellants for eviction of the tenants-respondents 6 to 39.