The Punjab Land Reforms Act,1972
Section 4. Permissible area
(1) Subject to the provisions of section 5, no person shall own or hold as landowner or mortgagee with the possession or tenant or partly in one capacity and partly in another in excess of the permissible area].
(2) `Permissible area shall mean in respect of ”
(a)land under assured irrigation and capable of yielding at least two crops in ayear (hereinafter in this Act referred to as `the first quality land) seven hectares; or
(b)land under assured irrigation for only one crop in a year, eleven hectares; or
(c)barani land,20.5 hectares; or
(d)land of other classes including banjar land, and area to be determined accordingly to the prescribed scale with reference to the intensity of irrigation, productivity and soil classification of such classes having regard to the respective valuation and the permissible area of the classes of land mentioned at (a), (b) and (c), above [subject to the condition that the area so determined shall not exceed 21.8 hectares].
Provided that
(i) where land consists of two or more classes, the permissible area shall be determined on the basis of relative valuation of sub clases of land, subject to the condition that it does not exceed 21.8 hectares;
(ii) where the number of member of a family exceeds five, the permissible area shall be increased by one-fifth of the permissible area for each member in excess of five, subject to the condition that additional land shall be allowed for not more than three such members.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), where any land is comprised in an orchard [on the appointed day], such land shall, for the purpose of determining the permissible area, be treated as barani land.
[(4)(a) Where a person is a member of a registered co-operative farming society, his share in the land held by such society together with his other land, if any, or if such person is a member of afamily, together wit the land held by every member of the family shall be taken int account for determining the permissible area;
(b) Where a person is a member of a family, the land held by such person together with the land held by every other member of the family, whether individually or jointly, shall be taken into account for determining the permissible area].
(5) In determining the permissible area any land which was transferred by sale, gift or otherwise, other than a bona fide sale or transfer, after the appointed day but before the commencement of this Act, shall be taken into account as if such land had not been transferred and the onus of proving the transfer as bona fide shall be on the transfor.
(6) For the purpose of valuation of land one and quarter hectares of banjar land shall be treated as equivalent in value to one hectare of barani land.
(7) For avaluating the land of any person at any time under this Act, the land owned by him immediately before the commencement of this Act as well as the land acquired by him after such commencement by inheritance, bequest or gift from aperson to whom he is an heir shall be evaluated as if the evaluation was being made on the appointed day and the land acquired by him after such commencement in any other manner shall be evaluated as if the evaluation was being mad on the date of such acquisition.
COMMENTS
Vendees of the land in the year 1979 i.e. after the appointed day” As far the Revenue Officer Revision No.795 of 1985-86 is concerned, appeal has been rightly rejected by the Commissioner as the petitioners were vendees of the land in the year 1979 i.e. after the appointed day and no benefit could be given to
them under the provisions of Punjab Land Reforms Act,1972. Admittedly they had purchased the surplus area after the enforcement of th Act and no benefit could be given to them and land purchased by them had already been declared suprlus by the order of the Collecor. Gurdarshan Singh alias Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab etc.,1990 PLJ 311
Tenant on the appointed day ” If the petitioner was a tenant on the appointed day and had continued to be a tenant continuously it would be maifestly unfair to deprive him of tenants permissible area merely because he subsequently purchased a part of the tenancy. Whether he in fact was entitled to tenants permissble area, is a matter to be examined by the Collector. Raja Ram vs. State of Punjab,1992 LLT 26 (F.C.Punjab)
If the petitioner was tenant on the appointed day and had continued to be a tenant continuously, it would be menifestly unfair to deprive him of tenants permissible area merely because he subsequently purchased a part of the tenancy. Raja Ram vs. State of Punjab,1988 PLJ 87
Surplus area It is clear that the possession of the area declared surplus under the old Act continues to be with the landowner i.e. the petitioner till today. It implies that the surplus area has not been utilised. That being so, the Collector was to re-determine the area under the new Act afresh in terms of the authorities cited by the petitioner. Behari Lal vs. State,1992 LLT 38 (F.C.Punjab)
It shall, however, be open to the authorities to re-assess the land in the hands of Surinder Kaur, who as referred above is daughter-in-law of Ajmer Singh, under the provisions of Punjab Land Reforms Act,1972. It is, therefore, made clear that if any such exercise is done, the vendees from Ajmer Singh shall also be heard. Ajmer Singh(died) vs. State of Punjab PLJ 583
No proof of the date of birth ” It would be ssen that at the time when the order Annexure P-1 was passed, no proof had been furnished by petitioner No.1 by Lekh Ram himself (though he was present in Court) which could show that he was an adult on the appointed day. When the matter was taken up by the Special Collector after remand , yet again no evidence was produced with regard to the date of birth of Lekh Ram. The Commissioner while recording the order Annexure P-3 found once again that there was no proof of date of birth of Lekh Ram on the file. Before the Financial Commissioner, however, the petitioners sought to produce some additional evidence in the shape of certificate showing the date of marriage of Lekh Ram as 16th February,1970 and the Voters List of 1984 showing Lekh Ram as being 33 years of age. The learned Financial Commissioner, however, found that the date of marriage could not prove the date of birth of Lekh Ram and the voters list obviously was an after though and was thus required to be ignored. The learned Financial Commissioner also relied on a certificate produced from the Govt. Primary School Daulatpur by Hari Chand respondent No.2 which showed lekh Rams date of birth as 24th December,1956 which did not confer adulthood on him on the appointed day. After considering the arguments, I am of the view that on the facts as pleaded and proved, it is difficult to take on opinion different from the one taken by the authorities below. The matter with regard to the date of birth of Lekh Ram has been gone into on a number of occasions and the findings have been found against him. The evidence sought to be produced before the Financial Commissioner has obviously been created later as it was not produced before the Collector or the Commissioner and as such I find no reason whatsoever to disagree with the findings of the authorities below. Sahi Ram vs State of Punjab through Collector, Ferozepur,1992(1) SLJ 928=1992 PLJ 313.
Cause of action — On behalf of the appellants, it was stated that the land, which was declared surplus, remained
in the possession of Inder Singh the landowner till his death, which took place on the 26th November,1983. After his death the appellants land had not been utilized by the State Government, with the result that the appelants had not been divested of its possession. After the death of the father of the appellants, a fresh cause of action again accrued to them and their rights are protected in view of the Full Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 1980 PLJ 354. Since Inder Singh and three adult sons, on the appointed day, they are entitled to take benefit of Section 11(5) and (7) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act. In pursuance of the remand order of the High Court, the father of the appellants filed objections which were accepted by the Collector (Agrarian) by his order dated the 9th November,1983 and the notice was withdrawn. The appeal filed by the State before the Commissioner had been accepted erroneously and the case remanded to the Collector with the direction that the case should be kept pending till decision of the Supreme Court in Ranjit Rams case. The order of the Commissioner in any case deserved to be set aside as no surplus land remained in the hands of the legal heirs of Inder Singh. Gurdev Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another 1988 PLJ 317.
Benefit of Section :-The Collector(Agrarian) was not justified in rejecting the the application of Harinder Rai petitioner for giving him the benefit of Section 5 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act on the ground that his appeal having been dismissed by the Commissioner and the case having been taken up in pursuance of the remand order of the Commissioner in the case of Saroj Rani etc., Harinder Rai petitioner could not be permitted to raise the plea of adult son etc. However, in view of the law laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the judgement reported in 1984 PLJ 385 such a objection could be raised before the Financial Commissioner even if it had not been raised before the Collector. The Collector should have given an opportunity to Harinder Rai to lead evidence on this point. Moreover, as per judgement reported in 1983 PLJ 319, the case of Harinder Rai Petitioner could not have been decided under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act,1953 after the coming into force of the Punjab Land Reforms Act,1972 with effect from 24.3.1973. The surplus area had to be re-determined under the new Act. Besides, the surplus area having not been utilised prior to the coming into force of th Punjab Land Reforms Act, it had to be re-determined under the new Act. The utilisation made during the pendency of the litigation would not in any way affect the interest of the petitioners. On this point, I am supported by the judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 1982 PLJ 223. After the coming into force of the new Act of 1972, the petitioner was entitled to reserve the land for his adult son and other members of his family, as per the law laid down by the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ranjit Rams case (1981 PLJ 259). The aforesaid judgement also lays down that where surplus area declared under the old Act had not been utilised before the coming into force of the Punjab Land Reforms Act,1972 it has to be re-determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1972. Under Section 5(1) of the Act of 1972, each son of a landowner who was adult on 24.1.1971 had to be allowed a separate unit of 7 hectares while determining the surplus area, if any. Harinder Rai Ahuja vs. State and others,1989 PLJ 612
Petitioner was adult on the appointed day ” The Commissioner has rejected the plea of petitioner Om Parkash that he be given tenantss permissible area on the ground that Om Parkash is the adopted son of the landowner Mohari Ram and, therefore, cultivation by Om Parkash becomes self-cultivation by the landowner, in that view of the matter it was incumbent on the Commissioner to determine the claim that the petitioner was a
dult on the appointed day, therefore, entitled to a separate permissible unit. Om parkash vs. State of Punjab,1992 LLT 22(F.C.Punjab)
The eldest son of the lanowner Manmohan Singh was major on the appointed date. But he was gramted citizenship of Australia on 8.6.1973. Certificate is on the file of the Collector on the date of decision of the case by the Collector(Agr.) in the year 1976. Manmohan Singh was not a citizen of India and as such, no benefit of additional unit being son of the landowner be given to him. The landowner had sold approximately 19 acres of land in village Sadhowal in the year 1973-74. As the sale was made after appointed date so this is to be ignored and the land will be counted in the hands of the big landowner. Similarly any land subsequently acquired by the landowner will also be counted towards his total holding. The Collector(Agr.) has given benefit of adult son to Harpreet Singh, who attained majority in the year 1979. This is wrong as the benefit of adult son is to be counted as on 24.1.1971 and not afterwards. As mentioned in the order of Collector(Agr.), Garhshankar dated 30.1.1980 the landowner has concealed material facts in his affidavit dated 19.2.1976 filed in connection with the proceedings before the Collector(Agr.) under the Land Reforms Act. This may be looked into all the land standing in the name of his son should be counted and appropriate action be taken under Section 23 of the Land Reforms Act,1972. This is a fit case to impose a cut of two hectares as envisaged in the Act. Gurbachan Singh Vs. Harbans Singh & others,1991 PLJ 226.
Remand ” The matter is remitted to the Commissioner for fresh decision in accordance with law. It shall be open to the parties to take all arguments on facts and law before the Commissioner, who shall dispose of the matter within a period of two months from the date he takes it up. Jagat Singh vs. Punjab State,1992(2) LLR458= 1992(1) CLJ 631
Absence of notice ” The order of the Special Collector, Annexure P-6, as well as of the Appellant authority, Annexure P-7 and that of the Provisional Authority confirming the order Annexure-P6, deserve to be quashed being void ab initio due to non-giving of notice to the present petitioner and it is a case which do call for fresh determination of the surplus by the requisite Authority after giving notice to the petitioners, but in the present case this exercise will be in futile nature as under the Provisions of Section 4 and 5 of Punjab Land Reforms Act,1972, the petitioner being the adult sons of Sarwan Singh, respondent No.2 shall also be entitled to get their permissible area of land, as admittedly the possession of the land declared surplus had not been taken over by the State till now. Moreover, the ownership of the surplus area of land would vest in the State only after its possession has been taken over from the owner under Section 32-E of the Pepsu Act. Charanjit Singh and others vs. State of Punajb and others,1990 PLJ 8
Bona-fide vendee ” The petitioner purchased the land from the big landowner in the year 1974 during the pendency of the proceedings and the surplus area case was decided on 26.3.1975. So far as notice to the petitioner is concerned at the time of declaration of surplus area the petitioner was not a bona fide vendee and was not required to be heard and the sale being not covered by Section 4(5) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act,1972 was rightly ignored. The petitioner acquired the land eyes open and subject to all liablities and defects from which it suffered in the hands of the big landowner. Kashmira Singh vs. State of Punjab and another,1991 PLJ 89.
Necessary parties— The tenants were necessary parites before the declaration of the surplus area and that their grand-father Jhanda Singh was a tenant; over 86 Kanals 19 Marlas of land which had to be declared tenants permissible area. Now the concept of tenant
s permissible area was not specifically incorporated in the New Act, unlike the Old Act, but a Division Bench of this Court in Jagraj Singh and others vs. The State of Punjab and others,1978 PLJ 59 spelled out such a concept and extended the concept to the New Act to conclude that tenant must be in occupation of land on the appointed day i.e. January 21,1971, in order to claim a tenants permissible area. Bhag Singh and another vs. Financial Commissioner and others,1989 PLJ 541
Notice ” With the coming into force of the Punjab Land Reforms Act,1972, it was incumbent on the Collector to have given due notice to the big landowner in whose hands surplus area had been assesseed under the old Act and to have condsidered the objections in the light of the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act,1972. As Inder Singh had three adult sons on appointed day, he was competent to retain a separate unit for each of his adult sons. To that extent, surplus area which was declared under the old Act but had not been utilised upto the coming into force of the new Act would have to suffer reduction to the extent necessary. In this case, the Collector, Sangrur found that no surplus land remained with the lanowner after allowing separate permissible area to the adult sons. Gurdev Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another,1988 PLJ 317
