C.W.P No.1535 of 1987 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : April 19, 2011 1. C.W.P No.1535 of 1987 Gurdip Singh and others vs The Financial Commissioner, Appeals Punjab and others. 2. C.W.P No. 1813 of 1987 Kartar Singh vs State of Punjab and others. *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. P.N.Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No.1535 of 1987. Mr. A.S.Jattana, Addl. A.G Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for respondent No.3 in CWP No.1535 of 1987/ petitioners in CWP No.1813 of 1987. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.1535 and 1813 of 1987, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CWP No.1535 of 1987. Pal Singh son of Chuhar Singh was a big landowner and by order dated 12.11.1962, 5 Standard Acres-4.1/2 units of land was declared C.W.P No.1535 of 1987 ::2:: surplus in his hands. Thereafter, 44 kanals of land was allotted to Kartar Singh son of Prem Singh (respondent No.3). He moved an application dated 15.3.1978 for conferment of proprietary rights under the Punjab Utilization of Surplus Lands Scheme 1973. The said application was contested by the petitioners by stating that the surplus land had never vested in the State and respondent No.3 was not in possession thereof on 4.3.1973 when the said scheme came into existence. The Collector Agrarian, Zira, vide order dated 2.7.1979, rejected the application by observing that the jamabandi of the year 1972-73 showed the land to be in possession of the sons of Pal Singh, and Khasra Girdawaris showed respondent No.3 as cultivating the land only from Kharif 1976. Respondent No.3 filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, who, vide order dated 2.2.1983 by holding that the land in dispute had been allotted to respondent No.3, and after utilization he had been wrongly dis-possessed of his tenancy prior to the enforcement of the said scheme, accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Collector Agrarian for determination of the price of the land in dispute, in accordance with law. Respondents No.2 to 4 impugned the order dated 2.2.1983 by way of revision before the Financial Commissioner. The learned Financial Commissioner held that with regard to 28 kanals 12 marlas there was no dispute that the land had been properly utilised prior to the appointed day viz. 24.1.1971. However, with regard to the remaining 15 kanals 8 marlas it was held as follows:- “ Regarding the remaining land measuring 15K-8M, the plea of the petitioners is that physical possession had not been given to the respondents even according to the report Roznamcha dated 20.6.1969 and at least to this extent, the land could not said to C.W.P No.1535 of 1987 ::3:: have been utilised, I notice that there is no appraisal of evidence on this score either by the Collector or by the Commissioner. There is some mention of compensation in respect of this land in the report Roznamcha dad 20.6.1969.If the conditions of Rule 20B(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 had been satisfied and compensation assessed by the Circle Revenue Officer paid before the appointed day and land must be considered to have been utilised and it would not be open for the landowner or any adult son to claim a separate permissible unit. If, however, those conditions had not been satisfied before 24.1.1971,such claim would have to be considered in view of the ration of the decision in Ranjit Ram's case(1981 PLJ-259).” In CWP No. 1535 of 1987 the legal representatives of the big landowner have averred that the order of the Collector be upheld and, in any case with regard to 15 kanals and 8 marlas the remand should be set aside and relief should be granted to them. In CWP No. 1813 of 1987 the allottee has challenged the remand with regard to the said 15 kanals 8 marlas and prayed that the order of the Commissioner should be restored. Sh.P.N.Aggarwal, learned counsel for the landowner has argued that there is no utilisation of the land in question in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Rules 20A, 20B and 20C of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956(hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1956”) and no certificate on the form K-6 was issued. He has relied upon Ranjit Ram vs. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and others, reported as 1981 PLJ 259. C.W.P No.1535 of 1987 ::4:: Sh.Chopra, learned counsel for the allottee has argued that the land owner had filed a civil suit claiming possession of the land and in that case it was held that the allottee had been put in actual possession on 20.06.1969 but he had been forcibly dispossessed. In the circumstances the authorities and the allottee had no opportunity to comply with the provisions of the Rules of 1956. That judgment was upheld up to the High Court. Sh. Aggarwal argued that the findings of the civil Court were void ab initio since it did not have the competence to decide whether the allotment was valid or not. In my opinion this argument would not lie in the mouth of the petitioner since they had filed the suit and the finding with regard to the handing over of actual physical possession to the allottee is a pure finding of fact. The contention of learned counsel for the allottee that having been dispossessed illegally, the allottee could not be expected to make the mandatory deposit or execute the Kabuliatnama, can also not be negatived. The argument of learned counsel for the big landowner that the benefit of Ranjit Ram's case(supra) has to be given to the LRs of the landowner is also misconceived. It has been rightly held by the Financial Commissioner that the determinant is the date 24.1.1971. If on that date the right of the allottee had crystalised, the benefit of Ranjit Ram's case(supra) cannot go to the landowner. In the circumstances CWP No. 1535 of 1987 has to fail. As regards the finding of the Financial Commissioner that the evidence in respect of 15Kanals 8 marlas has not been considered at all by either the Collector or the Commissioner, the same is correct. A perusal of C.W.P No.1535 of 1987 ::5:: the orders reveals that this issue has indeed not been examined. In the circumstances no fault can be found with the order of the remand with the direction to the Collector to examine this aspect. Resultantly both these petitions are dismissed. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 19, 2011 JUDGE `kk'