INAYAT MASIH vs CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER AND Another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition upholding the concurrent findings of the Land Commission authorities. The petitioner claimed the benefit of paragraph 15 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977, seeking allotment of resumed land as a cultivating tenant. The core legal question was whether the petitioner fulfilled the mandatory statutory requirement of being recorded in the revenue records as being in cultivating possession during Kharif 1976 and Rabi 1975-76. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to establish cultivating possession during the crucial crops as required by law, rendering his claim untenable. Furthermore, the Court held that new and contradictory grounds raised for the first time before the apex court, challenging the legality of the resumption and the vires of the law, could not be entertained. The petition was accordingly dismissed, and leave to appeal refused, laying down that revenue record entries regarding cultivating possession are foundational for statutory land allotment claims.
- Whether a tenant claiming land allotment under paragraph 15 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 must be recorded in cultivating possession during the crucial crop seasons?
- Can a petitioner raise new and contradictory grounds regarding the vires of a statute for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Does a person challenging land resumption properly forfeit the right to claim allotment under the same statutory framework?
- Paragraph 15, Land Reforms Act, 1977
ORDER
SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J.--The petitioner claimed benefit of para. 15 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977. He was denied that at all levels in the hierarchy of Land Commission. He filed a constitutional petition but failed. He seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 7-12-1981 whereby the constitutional petition was dismissed.
2. The factual basis of the claim of the petitioner was that he had been a cultivating tenant of the resumed land since 1975 and was on the strength of para. 15 entitled to the allotment of the resumed land. The requirement of para. 15 was that not only the person claiming should be a tenant cultivating the land but also that he should be shown in the revenue records to be in cultivating possession of it during Kharif 1976 and Rabi 1975-76". On scrutiny at all levels and by every authority dealing with the case it was found that the petitioner was not recorded to be in cultivating possession during the crucial crops. The petitioner is not in a position to challenge successfully that finding. Hence he has been rightly adjudged not to be entitled to the allotment of the resumed land. It is, therefore, immaterial whether he owned land or not and whether the respondents were no better entitled.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to take up two grounds which were new and somewhat contradictory to the case set out by the petitioner at earlier stages. It was contended that the resumed land belonged to Salvation Army or the Church and could not be resumed at all and secondly that the Land Reforms Regulation of 1977 under which the land was resumed was ultra vires for various reasons. It is significant that the petitioner has been hitherto making a claim and basing it on the ground that the resumption being proper and legal, be alone was entitled under para. 15 to get its allotment. There is no special feature in the case which may justify the taking of such grounds for the first time in this Court.
4. We do not find any merit in the petition and the leave to appeal is refused.