JUDGMENT
H.S. Bedi, J.
1. Land measuring 2 kanals 14 marlas, situated in village Bhagta Bhai Ka, District Bhatinda; was notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the ‘Land Act’) on 7.5.1982. On the completion of the acquisition proceedings, the compensation of the land was deposited by the Collector in the Government Treasury and the possession was taken from the land owners. It appears that the petitioner subsequently entered into possession of the land and cultivated the rabi 1983 crop. Respondent No. 2, the Extra Assistant Colonization Officer, Punjab (exercising the powers of Collector under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) thereupon issued a notice, Annexure P1, dated 12.10.1983 to the petitioners to show cause as to why the value of the crop be not fixed at Rs. 1,500/- per acre and recovery be made from them. The petitioners did not appear before the Collector in response to the notice, on which the Collector after examining the site in question and determining that the crop had, in the meanwhile, been cut by the petitioners, assessed the value thereof at Rs. 506.25 vide his order dated 27.2.1984 (Annexure P2). It is against the aforesaid order that the present writ petition has been filed.
2. On notice of motion, a reply has been filed by the respondents and the plea that the Collector was not authorised to levy a charge on the petitioner has been denied. Reliance for this assertion has been made on Section 34 of the Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the aforesaid matter was covered in the petitioners’ favour by a Single Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Civil Writ Petition No. 156 of 1983 (Atma Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.), decided on 1.8.1990.
4. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the State of Punjab has, however, pointed out that the judgment aforesaid had been rendered on the premise that no notice had been issued to the petitioner nor any hearing granted before the recover had been sought to be made and as such, the aforesaid matter was not conclusive on the question of applicability of Section 34 of the Act, whereas in the present case, admittedly not only the notice has been issued by the Collector, but had also been served on the petitioners though they had chosen to ignore it.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
6. Section 3 of the Act given the definition of Collector, which reads as under:-
“3. Definitions.- In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context-
“Collector” means the Collector of the District as described in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, (XVII of 1887) and includes (1) any officer appointed by the State Government to perform all or any of the functions and exercise all or any of the powers of the Collector under this Act, and (2) any Colonization Officer or Assistant Colonization Officer appointed as such before the commencement of this Act, whether or not such officer was by notification appointed to perform all or any of the functions of a Deputy Commissioner under the hereby repealed.”
Section 33 and 34 of the Act, which are relevant to the issues involved are reproduced as under:-
“33. Penalties.- If any person, without permission of a Revenue Officer of a grade
to be specified by the State Government-
(a) clears or breaks up for cultivation, or cultivates any land which is owned by, or is in the possession of the Government and is not included in any tenancy or allotted residential enclosure or which has been set apart for the common purposes of a town or village community or section of the same or for a road, canal or watercourse; or
(b) erects any building on any such land; or
(c) fells or otherwise destroys standing trees on such land; or
(d) otherwise encroaches on any such land; or
(e) makes an excavation or constructs a water channel on any such land;
he shall, on complaint made by order of or under authority from the Collector, be punished on conviction (****) with a fine not exceeding Rs. 200/-.”
“34. Additional powers of Collector in regard to offences.- When the Collector is satisfied that an act punishable under Section 33 has been committed he may in lieu of proceeding against the offender under that section or after conviction of the offender under that section-
(i) in the case of an offender under Section 33(a), confiscate the crops growing on any land cultivated in contravention of this Act or, if the crops have been cut, recover such sum as he may assess as the value thereof from the offender;
(ii) in the case of an offence under Section 33(c), recover such sum as he may assess as the value of the trees or tree destroyed;
(iii) in the case of an offence under Section 33(b), (d) or (c), cause the building or other encroachment to be demolished or removed or the excavation or channels to be filled up, and levy the costs of so doing from the person responsible for such act.”
7. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Sections would reveal that a Revenue Officer can impose a fine under Section 33 on conviction and Section 34 gives the Collector certain additional powers with respect to matters covered under Section 33 of the Act and it clearly envisages that he is authorised to assess the value of the crop which has been cut by the offender and to order the recovery of the amount. To my mind, therefore, the jurisdiction of the, Collector to make the assessment is not in doubt.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has, however, relied on the following observations of the learned Single Judge in Atma Singh’s case (supra):
“The learned counsel for the State could not satisfy me as to under what provision of the Punjab Colonization Lands Act, 1912, the certificate dated 12th November, 1989 (Annexure P3) had been issued by the Extra Assistant Colonization Officer for realisation of Rs. 25,900/- from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue. Admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioners nor any hearing was granted to them before the issuing certificate (Annexure P3). That being the position, the certificate Annexure P3 is liable to be quashed.”
9. In the light of the fact that the provisions of Sections 33 and 34 of the Act have
not been noticed by the learned Single Judge in the afore-cited case, I am of the opinion
that the above judgment cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present one.
Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the
method by which the value of the cut crop had to be assessed had not been set down in
the Act, the assessment made in this case was not proper. To my mind this argument is
without merit, as the Collector is a Revenue Officer and has the competence and knowledge of agriculture to make an assessment which would invariably vary from crop to
crop. The value assessed with respect to the crop was thus absolutely just and proper in
the circumstances of the case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.