- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 17th February, 1989 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 3913 of 1985.
(2.) Appellant, Jasmer Singh, by way of said writ petition challenged the orders Annexure P.1 and Annexure P.3 passed by Collector Agrarian and Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, whereby some of his land was declared to be surplus. While declaring the land surplus in his hand the land possessed by him which was owned by Smt. Anguri Devi was also taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since in R.S.A. No. 915 of 1987 and R.S.A. No.924 of 1987, it has been held by this Court that Smt. Anguri Devi was the sole owner of the suit land, the same could not be taken into consideration while declaring the land surplus in the hands of Jasmer Singh. He further submitted that the said land was also considered while declaring surplus area in the hands of Smt. Anguri Devi as well.
(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in this contention. Learned Single Judge has discussed the entire matter in detail. The definition of 'landowner' as given in Punjab Land Reforms Act is the same as defined in Section 3(2) of Punjab Land Revenue Act. The said definition of the Punjab Land Revenue Act reads as under:- "land-owner' does not include a tenant or an assignee of land revenue, but does include a person to whom a holding has been transferred, or an estate or holding has been let in farm under this Act for the recovery of an arrear of land revenue or of a sum recoverable as such an arrear and every other person not hereinbefore in this clause mentioned who is in possession of an estate or any share or portion thereof, or in the enjoyment of any part of the profits of an estate." In view of the definition mentioned above, it could not be successfully argued on behalf of the appellant that he could not be deemed to be landowner of the said land for the purpose of declaring the surplus area. Admittedly, he was in enjoyment of the profits of the suit land owned by Smt. Anguri Devi. Rather, the case set up by him was that he was its owner because of alleged Will dated 1.1.1956 executed by Jai Singh deceased, which plea was found to be false by the Civil Court upto the High Court. In these circumstances, there is nothing wrong or illegal in the judgment of the learned Single Judge as to interfere in this L.P.A. Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.;