The Punjab Land Reforms Act,1972
Section 7. Determination of permissible and surplus area
(1) On the basis of the information given in the declaration furnished under section 5 or the information obtained under section 6, as the case may be, and after making such inquiry as he may deem fit, the Collector shall, by an order determine the permissible area and the surplus area of a landowner or tenant, as the case may be.
“[(2)] If any person referred to in sub-section (1) of section 5 fails to furnish the declaration or files a declaration containing which is false or which he knows or has reason to believe to be false or which he does not believe to be true, he shall be punishable with the imprisonment which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or with both].
(4) For the purpose of determining the surplus area of any person,–
(i) any judgement decree or order of a Court or other authority obtained [on or after the appointed day] and having the effect of dismissing the surplus area of such person;
(ii) a tenancy created [on or after the appointed day] in any land which has been or could have been declared as surplus area of such person under the Punajb Law, the Pepsu law or this Act;
Tenants Permissible area ” If the petitioner was tenant on the appointed day and had continued to be a tenant continuoudly it would be manifestly 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 permissible area, is a metter to be examined by the Collector. Raja Ram vs. State of Punjab,1992 LLT 26(F.C.Punjab)
Purchase of land ” It is not known whether, for purposes of assessment, the land so purchased under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land tenures Act was included in the land owners total holding or not, and if included, as alleged by the petitioner, the reasons for doing so and ignoring the purchases. I therefore, direct that the Collector may examine this aspect carefully and carry out a review of the order dated 22.11.1976 in which he must hear not only the petitioner but the departmental authorities, the landowner and the tenants-purchasers with an opportunity to them to lead evidence in cases the purchases were based only on account of the landowner and not on the evidence on entries in the revenue record. Until this examination is done, the surplus area should not be utilised. Devi Lal vs. State etc.,1988 PLJ 202
Absence of notice ” No notice whatsoever was given to the petitioners though they were tenants on the appointed day i.e. 24.1.1971. The surplus area case of the big landowner was filed under the New Act as he died on 8.8.1985 and the surplus area was to be re-determined in the hands of the legal heirs but the Special Collector(Agrarian) Fazilka, vide his order dated 26.5.1987 upheld the order dated 28.9.1962 which was passed under the Old Act whereas he should have determined the surplus area in the hands of legal heirs of the big landowner under the New Act. He should have decided it on merits. Waryam Ram etc. vs. The State of Punjab etc.,1991 PLJ 35
Re-opening of case ” The area was declared surplus in the year 1960/1980 and these orders have not been set aside. The surplus area under the tenancy of Jagat Ram was allotted to him on 24.3.1982 and he deposited the purchase amount on 30.3.1982 in the Treasury. It has been held in C.W. No.8230 of 1976 as reported in 1980 PLJ 571 that after deposit of first intalment the tenant becomes the landowner. After the deposit of Rs.5900/- in the Treasury on 30.3.1982 the allottee, Jagat Ram, became the landowner. Due to death of the original landowner in the year 1984 this aspect o
f the case c
annot be reopened as the land stood utilized during the life-time of the landowner who did not challenge this order either in appeal or revision. Jagat Ram (now deceased) rep. By his sons vs. State and another,1990 PLJ 548
Withdrawl of the notice ” The Collector had withdrawn notice under Section 9(1) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act vide his order dated 23.1.1984. There is nothing on the file to show that the petitioners are relations of the landowners and there is also finding of the Collector that the petitioners are not related to the landowners in any way. The petitioners purchased the land by a valid order and the Collector had rightly withdrawn notice under the Punjab Land Reforms Act. Moreover, the petitioners were not before the learned Commissioner at the time of passing of the order adversely affecting their case. The Commissioner could not pass the order against the petitioners adversely affecting their interest without affording opportunity of being heard to them. Keeping in view the above discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, I agree with the contentions raised by counsel for the petitioners in Revenue Officer. Gurdarshan Singh alias Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab etc.,1990 PLJ 311
Separate permissible unit ” the Commissioner has rejected the plea of the petitioner Om Parkash that he be given tenants permissible area on the ground that Om Parkash is the adopted son of the land owner 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 adult on the appointed day and, therefore, entitled to a separate permissible unit. Om Parkash vs. State of Punjab,1992 LLT(22) (F.C.Punjab)
The eldest son of the landowner Manmohan Singh was major on the appointed date. But he was granted 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 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 big landowner. Similarly any land subsequently acquired by the landowner will also be counted towards his total holdings. 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 no afterwards. As mentioned in the order of the Collector(Agr.) Garhshankar dated 30.1.1980 the landowner had 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 and all the land standing in the names of his sons 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 2 hectares as envisaged in the Act.
The order of Collector Agrarian dated 12.5.1976 continues to be the basic order with regard to determination of surplus area quantum. It is matter of fact and is conceded by the counsel for the State also that Chanan Ram, petitioner, was not given notice. This is his legal right. On this ground alone I have to remand the case to Collector Agrarian, Abohar, to give a hearing to the petitioner and pass an order on the validity or otherwise of the relief claim by Chanan Ram. Collector Agrarian, Abohar, is directed to give the petitioner an early hearing. Chanan Ram vs. State of Punjab and others,1991 PLJ 794
The petitioners have not been granted opportunity of hearing only on the ground that the sales had taken place after the “appointed day” . The fact remains that the petiti
oners had got registered sale deeds in their favour. They were in actual physical possession of the land. By the impugned action they were likely to be deprived in their land. The civil rights were bound to be affected. Sabar Khan and others vs. Financial Commissioner(Appeals) Punjab and others,1993 PLJ 208
Sale — The sale in favour of the petitioner by the original landowner was made in the year 1974 and mutation too was sanctioned on 30th October,1974, whereas the order of the Collector was made in 1977. I am of the view that the petitioner had a right to show before the authorities below that the sale effected in his favour was bona fide one which entitled him to the retention of the area sold to him. It is also clear from the impugned orders Annexures P-3 and P-4 that the solitary ground on which the Commissioner as also Financial Commissioner had dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner was that they were time barred. I am of the view that the orders impugned before those authorities were made without issuing any notice to the petitioner, and as such, were void in the eye of law. Bhupinder Singh vs. State of Punjab,1992 PLJ 462
Selection made by the landowner ” The decision made by the landowner need not and should not have been honoured for it was not a valid selection because it was made after the prescribed date and it was not made in the form prescribed. The Collector was competent to make his own selection of the permissible area of the landowner and justice and equity demanded that the area in question should be included in the landowners permissible area. Hukam Chand etc. vs. State and Hazari Ram,1988 PLJ 386
Separation of the possession ” Where there is a mere separate of the possession as distinguished from a partition, the entire holding still remains the joint property of all the co-sharers; and though each sharer holds separate possession of a portion of the holding, and may be allowed to manage such portion and appropriate the whole of its proceeds, he is yet not competent to deal with it in any manner which would be prejudicial to the joint proprietary interest of all the co-sharers in each and every part of the holding. Thus all that she holds in that joint khata is a joint right and this joint right has not been for any exclusive right to any specific khasra numbers. Since none of her rights has been infringed while deciding the surplus area case of Siri Ram, she, in fact, has no locus standi even to file an appeal against the order of the Collector Agrarian dated 6.6.1973 declaring the surplus area of Siri Ram. Apart from this, the petitioner Ved Wanti had no locus standi in filing the appeal or even the present revisions petition when her right has not at all been touched by the Collector vide his order dated 6.6.1973. Ved Wanti vs. State of Punjab and others,1990 PLJ 124