High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/7341/1993dismissed

Ranbir v. State Of Punjab

2024-09-02Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger9 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN NJAB AND HARYANA AT GARH CHANDIG CWP-7341-1993 (O& &M) Date of Decision: 02.09.20 RANBIR AND OTHERS

...Petitioners

Versus

s STATE O

CORAM

OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

...Respondents

M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present :

Mr. Gulshan Sharma, Advoc for the petitioners.

Mr. Navneet Singh, Senior D BUNGER, J.

ate D.A.G., Punjab.

HARSH B Petitioners have filed the in nstant writ petition under Artic cles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari i, for setting aside the order d dated 06.05.1993 (Annexure P P-1) passed by y the learned Financial Comm missioner (Appeals) Punjab; or rder dated 12.

.06.1986 (Annexure P-2) passe ed by the learned Commission ner, Ferozepur r Division, Ferozepur and a also the order dated 31.05.19 (Annexur re P-3) passed by the learned Col llector (Agrarian), Abohar.

Briefly, the surplus area cas se of predecessor in interest of the private re espondents was decided by t the learned Collector, under the provisions s of the Punjab Land Reforms A Act, 1972 (in short `the 1972 A ct') wherein 8 8.31.49 hectares of first quality land was declared surplus and d an appeal file ed by one landowner (Sahib Sing gh) was dismissed by the Appell late Authority y vide order dated 04.06.1982.

of 9

2.1 It is the case of the petitioners that they along with their fatherSanwal Ram (since deceased) were cultivating 190 Kanals-3 Marlas of land as tenants under the private respondents (big landlord) since 1953-54. Petitioners claim that their possession over the afore-said land was uninterrupted. According to the petitioners, only 44 Kanals-10 Marlas of land was allowed as Tenants Permissible Area (in short `TPA'), out of the afore-said total land of 190 Kanals-3 Marlas and their claim as regards the remaining land was rejected by the learned Collector (Agrarian), Abohar, vide order dated 31.05.1984 (Annexure P-3) on the ground that since they had purchased the rest of the land from the land owners vide registered sale deed dated 23.10.1981, therefore, they ceased to be tenants on the purchased portion of the land.

2.2 Being aggrieved against the afore-said order dated 31.05.1984 (Annexure P-3), the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, which was also dismissed vide order dated 12.06.1986 (Annexure P-2).

2.3 A further revision petition filed by the petitioner before the learned Financial Commissioner, was also dismissed vide order dated 06.05.1993 (Annexure P-1).

In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court for the relief, as noticed here-in-above. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders are wrong, perverse and are therefore, liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioners has been rejected only on the ground that their father-Sanwal Ram, ceased to be a tenant on the land on account of his purchase of the land from the big land-owner. It is submitted

that mere purchase by tenant of land which is under cultivation of the tenants would not deprive them of their status as tenants. It is further submitted that the petitioners are poor persons and they have no other source of livelihood except the land under their possession, which according to the petitioners, is continuing since 1953-54. It is next contended that the case of the petitioners is covered by a judgment dated 18.04.1975 (Annexure P-4) rendered by this Court in CWP-716-1966 titled as Munshi Ram and another vs State of Punjab etc. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 5.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State has opposed the submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners by submitting that the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands. It is submitted that petitioner No.3 is not the son of Sanwal Ram, rather he is the son of Smt. Bakhtavri daughter of Sanwal Ram and he had become owner through Will dated 23.04.1984 (Annexure R-1). It is further submitted that the petitioners have no locus standito file the present writ petition as Sahib Ram (land owner) is the owner of 1/5th share of the land in question; therefore, the petitioners cannot be entitled to claim the land measuring 190 Kanal-3 Marlas as their TPA. It is further submitted that the petitioners are not legally entitled for TPA. As per report of the Field Staff, Sanwal Ram cultivated

" # $ " # !

% & '

# ""

(

)* %$ #

" )* * '

+ ), -

# (,

). % "

" "

" # "

" /

# "

' !

" "

* ' "

341 !

)

( )**

, )

-# "

)*(

# 5

6 # 2

4 "

).( ' "

)

( )**

2 5

!"" # 7"

2 5

" 3 8

" ! .

% 2 5

).5 9

$,6

% &'

&( ) & & *

--"

+, &

& '

& & '

& .*.)

+2 , 34

-- "

5 +, 3"

6 . !

4- ,#

3 !2 2

6 .

7 8

7%8

& 5 9 )

# "

4 " &! 3

4 " " !

(

).0 #

: :

) &/ 0"

3$ ; , < 4 4, ' & = .

;

-4 ; 2 <

$$2

: ) & &

. $& ) 3 -

> & )

;

#3!>; <

- 34 . )

& * & '

+ &

)

& *

. . ) ) & &

*.)

&/0

3- . ) & &

.--;@!<

A ) & .+, --;@! <

)

;

--;!<

)/ 0"

& $$

& --;!< A & : . ) & & !> "

. ?

" .

. . ,

(

. --;!<

) & & , $ 32 "

. .

C 7 8

$$ 9

! "

# "

)), 9

$ 6

# ! "

% $

; "

)*(

% $

).# 2

4 " ""

# "

). 11.1 A Division Bench of this Court in Jagraj Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 1978 PLJ 59., has held as under:- ''A plain reading of sub-section (1) of sections 4 and 7 leads to a clear conclusion that the Act does envisage the concept of tenants' permissible area and a person who does not otherwise own land, has a right to reserve and retain land in his occupation as a tenant as tenants' permissible area subject to the extent detailed in subsection (2) of section 4. Under sub-section (1) of section 5 only such tenants of the land are to be recognised for the purposes of the Act who occupied it as such on the appointed day, which under sub-section (1) of section 3 is 21st (24th) of January, 1971. In view of these clear provisions in the Act, the argument of the learned counsel for the State that the petitioners cannot assert their claim qua any land of respondents Nos. 3 to 5 as tenant's permissible area under the Act cannot be sustained. (emphasis supplied)'' (

# "

" # "

" " # "

$/ #< %

! $/< )*( ' !

#2 "

# "

"" #

September 02, 2024 (HARSH BUNGER) gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No