- (1.) Jagir Singh, petitioner, owns 15 Hectares and 45.66 Roods of land. He submitted a declaration in Form "A" prescribed by the Punjab Land Reforms Rules (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). After making due inquiries, the Collector vide his order dated 25th June, 1975, declared 8 Hectares and 45.66 Roods as surplus with him. He has filed this writ petition assailing that order.
(2.) Mr. P.S. Mann, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner had transferred 22 acres (174 kanals 15 marlas) of land to his sons in compliance with the decree of the Civil Court on 21st of February, 1972. The petitioner's mother had filed a suit against him claiming maintenance. The suit was decreed by the Civil Court on 22nd May, 1972 and 13 acres of land was transferred to the mother in lieu of the decree passed in her favour and she took possession of the same. According to the learned counsel, these were bona fide transfers and were saved by the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'). He also contended that the petitioners had two adult sons and as such he was entitled to select one unit of permissible area for each of them and if the two units for the sons are excluded then the petitioner is left with no surplus area. In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel it will be necessary to refer to the relevant statutory provisions : "S. 4(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 transferor". "S. 7(4) : For the purpose of determining the surplus area of any person :- (i) any judgment, decree or order of a Court or other authority obtained on or after the appointed day and having the effect of diminishing the surplus area of such a 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 a person under the Punjab Law, the Pepsu Law or this Act; shall be ignored." Mr. Mann has contended that the petitioner had made bona fide transfers in favour of his sons and his mother. The authorities have not held that they were not bona fide transfers and as such in view of the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the Act these bona fide transfers had to be ignored while determining the permissible area. There is no merit in this contention of the learned counsel. Even according to the averments made in the writ petition, the lands were transferred in favour of the sons and the mother, respectively, in compliance with two decrees. The effect of these decrees and transfers is that the surplus area of Jagir Singh is reduced. In view of the language employed in sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Act such decrees which have been obtained after the appointed day which is 24th January, 1971 have to be ignored. So, these transfers in compliance with the decrees fall within sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Act. Sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the Act is not applicable to them because they are not transfers simpliciter. Moreover, such transfers in favour of the sons and the mother cannot be termed to be bona fide.
(3.) Regarding the second contention of Mr. Mann that the Collector, Land Reforms, Kapurthala, has clearly stated in the return filed by him that the two sons of the petitioner were minor. The record produced before me by the State counsel shows that the petitioner in his declaration filed by him had stated that his two sons were minor. This had been verified by a Lambardar. He had not stated that he had any major sons. He has only two sons and both of them are minor. So, the petitioner is not entitled to select any permissible area of his sons.;