IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.8.2009 Ram Singh. -----Appellant Vs. Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. V.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prashant Vashisth, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Suveer Sehgal, Addl.A.G., Punjab for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. G.S. Jaswal, Advocate for respondent No.5. Mr. P.C. Rakhra, Advocate for respondents No.6-11. ----- ORDER: 1. The appellant is aggrieved by judgment of the learned Single Judge, upholding the order of the Financial Commissioner under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short, “the 1953 Act”), whereby claim of the appellant for fresh selection of permissible area was rejected. LPA No.1 of 2007 2. The appellant was a big land owner and after allowing him to select permissible area, the remaining area was declared surplus by the Collector, who was the competent authority under the Act, vide order dated 31.5.1960. The appellant applied for changing the permissible area out of land allotted after consolidation proceedings. This application was rejected by the Collector on 25.4.1962. Later, the State Government sought review of the proceedings for changing field numbers of the surplus area, which change became necessary on account of consolidation. This prayer was allowed by the Commissioner on 26.2.1974. Before that, the surplus land was allotted to the landless tenants on 11.6.1971, as affirmed in appeal on 14.10.1971. The Collector passed order dated 31.8.1976 to give effect to the order of the Commissioner for changing the field numbers and a fresh order was passed, after remand, on 9.3.1981. The appellant challenged the order dated 9.3.1981 by submitting that his adult son was entitled to a separate unit as per the provisions of new law i.e. Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. This plea was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 19.10.1983, which order has been upheld by the Financial Commissioner in its impugned order. 3. The Financial Commissioner held that only numbers were to be changed and no fresh selection process could be undertaken, particularly when the surplus area already stood utilised. 2 LPA No.1 of 2007 4. Challenge to the order of the Financial Commissioner has been rejected by the learned Single Judge with the following observations:- “I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the paper book as also the orders impugned before me. The admitted fact is that the permissible area was disclosed by the petitioner vide application dated August 16, 1959 in which he had mentioned the killa numbers which he wanted to be included in his reserved area. This application was processed and his statement was recorded by the Collector on December 18, 1959 and in his statement also he disclosed the killa numbers pertaining to the land which he wanted to be included in his surplus area. The Collector (Agrarian), Dasuya had erred while passing the order dated May 31, 1960, by making reference to the pre-consolidation Khasra numbers which stood re-defined after killa numbers had already been framed upon post- consolidation and this indicated the surplus area in the hands of the petitioner. There was no question of declaring the reserved and surplus area in terms of pre-consolidation Khasra numbers. The application dated November 13,1961 submitted by the petitioner for seeking review of the order had been rejected. It is not understood how the old Khasra numbers, which did not exist could be included by the Collector in his order. It is because of this reason the review was sanctioned and fresh order was passed indicating the area comprised under the post-consolidation Khasra numbers. For making such correction a right had not accrued to the petitioner for carving out his area 3 LPA No.1 of 2007 afresh as no change had accrued accordingly. Pursuant thereto, learned Collector (Agrarian) Dasuya passed the order dated March 9, 1981 by categorically defining the permissible area in Annexure A and surplus area in Annexure B, appended with the order. This order has withstood the test all along. New grounds had been set up that some area in the surplus pool was covered by an orchard and some area stood defined as banjar and further some area stood defined as gair mumkin abadi, which could not have been utilized by the Revenue Authorities for settling the land-less tenants. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any cogent piece of evidence that the petitioner had claimed the exemption from the rigor of surplus area by indicating that he had planted orchard upon the area measuring 75 kanals and 2 marlas (4 standard acres and 13-3/4 units) and that the banjar area measuring 5 kanals 11 marlas (2-1/2 units) had even been disclosed. Similarly, the area comprised has gair mumkin abadi measuring 2 kanals 4 marlas was also not disclosed. A perusal of Annexure B with the aforestated order of the learned Collector (Agrarian), does not show anywhere that any piece of land could fall under the aforestated three categories. It has also been seen that the land which fell into the surplus area pool had been utilized as respondent No.5 had been settled upon the land measuring 32 kanals 18 marlas in 1962 and that Dhanna Singh, predecessor-in-interest of respondents 6 to 11 had been settled on the other part of the surplus area on July 10, 1970 and had been put into possession of the land on October 9, 4 LPA No.1 of 2007 1970. It is a separate matter that the application for purchase of the land submitted by respondent No.5 had been allowed in the first instance but subsequently had been set aside probably on the ground of quantum of price. Dehors this the settlement of the aforesaid respondents upon the surplus land amounted to utilization of the land comprised in surplus pool of the government. The cumulative reading of the orders would show that the surplus area had been correctly assessed by the Revenue Authorities and the only snag was that the Khasra numbers of pre-consolidation had been mentioned whereas in fact the Khasra numbers of post consolidation were required to be mentioned as had been claimed by the petitioner in his application submitted on August 16, 1959. Obviously, no fresh right accrued to the petitioner by virtue of the promulgation of the Reforms Act. The claim in regard to adult son would also be not available to the petitioner as the land stood utilized by way of settlement of the land-less tenants much prior to the appointed date i.e. January 24, 1971.” 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that once there was a change of the permissible area by the order of the Commissioner, the proceedings are required to be taken under the new Act and a separate unit was required to be reserved. 7. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents points out that the appellant having selected the permissible area, fresh selection could not be allowed in view of provisions of 5 LPA No.1 of 2007 Section 5(3) of the 1953 Act. Proceedings for mere change in Khasra numbers on account of consolidation did not mean that the proceedings for declaration of surplus area were to be reopened. In such a situation, there could be no ground to review the order of declaration of surplus area on merits and the plea that adult son was entitled to separate unit under the new law, could not be accepted. 8. It is clear that the surplus area was utilised in the year 1971 and change was only of Khasra numbers on account of consolidation, which did not amount to reopening of the proceedings. The provision of the new Act could not, thus, apply. 9. No ground is, thus, made out to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 10. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 12, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 6