The Collector's decision on the bona fide nature of sales under the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, is final, and the burden of proof lies on the transferer to prove the transfer's bona fide nature.

P. K. Mattoo, I. A. S. (FC).—This is a revision petition under section 20 of the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act) against the order of the Commissioner dated 25th August, 1975 whereby he dismissed an appeal against the order of Collector, Una, dated 8th May, 1975.

2. The first point contended before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner had not been granted full relief in respect of the bona fide sales made by him from time to time. In this connection he drew my particular attention to sale of 6 kanals 16 marlas of land purporting to have been made to one Shri Beant Singh in 1.966 and subsequently confirmed through a formal sale deed registered on 22-10-1973. A copy of the sale deed was also brought on the record.

3. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that the Collector had after assessing the evidence on record provided full relief to the petitioner in respect of sales made by him from time to time. The learned counsel further mentioned that the sale deed dated 22-10-1973 did not make any reference to any earlier act of sale as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel also invited my attention to the provisions of section 7 (2) of the Act and also cited Hardwari Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Revenue Revision No. 3 of 1976 in support of his contention.

4. Section 7 (2) of the Act reads as follows :— "The Collector shall determine whether a transfer is bonafide or not and his decision shall be final: Provided that the burden of proving the transfer to be bona fide one shall be on the transferer: Provided further that if a person transfers any land in contravention of the provisions of this section, in case of vestment in the State, the land left with him after such transfer will be taken into account only for making up of deficiency of land to be vested."

5. It has been observed in Hardwari Lal v. State of Him. Pra., (supra) that according to sub-section (2) of section 7 of the Act, the Collector shall determine whether a transfer is bona fide or not and his decision on this issue shall be final. The burden of proving the transfer to be bona fide has been placed on the transferer.

6. The findings of the Collector in the present case regarding the bonafide nature of sale have been upheld by the Commissioner in appeal. Keeping in view the provisions of section 7 (2) of the Act and the observations made in Hardwari Lal v. State of H. P., it has to be concluded that no case for interference with the orders of the Collector is made out on this count.

7. The second point raised before me was that "Kharkana" land which had subsequently been rendered unfit for agricultural purposes had been wrongly treated as land for the purpose of determining the surplus area by the Collector and that the petitioner was entitled to relief in respect of the area which had ceased to be land within the meaning of the Act subsequent to the appointed date.

8. This contention has two aspects. The first concerns the sanctity which has to be attached to entries in the revenue records by the Collector while determining the nature of land. In this connection the learned counsel for the State cited Major General Jai Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Revenue Revision No. 180/75. In this case it has been observed that, "if land is entered in the revenue records as gair mumkin or under any other amblvaient classification but is actually occupied or has been let for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture or for pasture, it shall have to be treated as land." It has also been held in the same case that the Collector is competent to decide the question whether a particular land falls within the definition of land as provided for in the Act or not. In view of these observations the Collector cannot be said to have acted wrongly in deciding that "Kharkana" land was land for the purposes of the Act i