CWP No.4935 of 1982 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.4935 of 1982
Date of Decision: 7.8.2008
Ranjit Singh and others ....Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
....
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
****
Present : Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.N.S. Pawar, Addl.A.G. Punjab for the respondents.
…
RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)
The petitioners pray for the issuance of a writ in the nature of
Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the
orders dated 16.6.1976, 12.12.1978 and 7.10.1982.
The surplus area case of Kaka Singh, a big land owner, was
decided by the Collector, Agrarian, Barnala on 16.6.1976, declaring land
measuring 1.58.57 hectare of `A’ quality land as surplus. Kaka Singh,
thereafter, filed an appeal, before the Commissioner, Patiala Division,
Patiala, under Section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972
(hereinafter referred to as `the Act’). The appeal was dismissed on
12.12.1978. Kaka Singh, thereafter, filed a revision before the Financial
Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh. The revision petition was dismissed on
7.10.1982. During the pendency of the revision, the petitioners filed an
application accompanied by an affidavit that Kaka Singh was passed away
on 23.4.1982 and the petitioners, who are his widow, sons and daughters,
CWP No.4935 of 1982 2
should be impleaded as parties. It was also prayed that as the big land
owner had passed away, the surplus area would have to be redetermined in
the hands of his legal representatives. The learned Financial Commissioner
dismissed the revision petition,by holding that surplus area could not be
redetermined in the hands of legal representatives, as it had to be
determined on 3.10.1973 when Kaka Singh filed Form `A’. It was also held
that the application for impleading of legal representatives was false, as the
Death Certificate produced referred to the date of Death as 5.9.1982,
whereas in the application, the date of death was 23.4.1982.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Financial
Commissioner, committed an error on two counts, firstly; by holding that
the surplus area could not be redetermined at the hands of the legal heirs
and secondly that the application for impleading of legal representatives of
Kaka Singh was false. It is submitted that the petitioners had appended
copy of a death certificate, issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths,
which clearly discloses that Kaka Singh passed away on 5.9.1982. The
date of death, 23.4.1982 was inadvertently typed in the application. This
inadvertent error on the part of their counsel should have been ignored. It
is further argued that the controversy in the present case is squarely covered
by a judgement of a Full Bench in Sardara Singh V. Financial
Commissioner, 2008(2) Law Herald (Punjab and Haryana), 961, as it has
been held that in case a big land owner passes away, during the pendency of
an appeal, revision or a writ petition and the State has failed to take
possession of surplus area so determined, the legal heirs of such a big land
owner would be entitled to a redetermination of the land belongs to the big
land owner, received by them upon inheritance.
CWP No.4935 of 1982 3
Counsel for the State of Punjab, accepts that the controversy in
the instant case is squarely covered by the judgement of the Full Bench
referred to herein above.
The learned Financial Commissioner declined the prayer for
redetermination of the surplus area in the hands of legal heirs of Kaka
Singh, by holding that their application for being impleaded as legal heirs
was false. The learned Financial Commissioner, did not peruse or refer to a
copy of the Death Certificate, issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths,
appended with the application. The death certificate clearly and
categorically refers to the date of death of Kaka Singh as 5.9.1982.
Reference to the date of death as 23.4.1982 in the application was an
inadvertent error on the part of the petitioners counsel and, should,
therefore,have been ignored.
Admittedly, Kaka Singh, the big land owner, passed away on
5.9.1982. A mutation of inheritance, to the estate of Kaka Singh was
sanctioned in favour of petitioners no.1 to 4. The petitioners’ contention
that on account of the demise of Kaka Singh, during the pendency of
proceedings for determination of surplus area, the respondents would be
required to redetermine the surplus area in the hands of Kaka Singh’s legal
heirs in view of the Full Bench judgement in Sardara Singh (supra). A
relevant extract of the aforementioned judgement reads as follows :-
“40. We are of the view that the controversy can be
resolved either through reading the plain meaning of
words or through harmonious construction, if the plain
meaning of words does not yield any result. The
majority view had taken the plain meaning of the words
CWP No.4935 of 1982 4and come to the definite conclusion which has been
reproduced above. Nevertheless, the minority view is
also based on the plain meaning of certain words
occurring in Section 11(7). The difference between the
two views is with regard to the meaning of “determine”
and “determined. The majority view appears to be to take
“determine” and “determined” to mean the same thing
but the minority view is that “determine” means to decide
while “determined” used in Section 11(7) means to put
to or come to an end.
41. We may take the assistance of the judgement of the
Supreme Court in Ajmer Kaur’s case (supra) where the
phrase “determine by the Collector” used in Section 11
(7) was read to mean that the order of the Collector had
attained finality. In that case the order of the Collector
had been passed in 1976 when the land was declared
surplus. The appeal was dismissed in 1979.
Subsequently, the surplus land had been mutated in
favour of the State Government in 1982 and allotted to
private individuals in 1983. The landowner had filed an
application in 1985 for redetermination in view of the
death of his wife but the Supreme Court held that
determination by the Collector in 1979 had become final
and could not be reopened in 1985.
42. The arguments of the learned counsel for Rattan
Devi may not be required to be examined in detail
CWP No.4935 of 1982 5because we are harmoniously constructing Sections 11(5)
and 11(7) of the Act. This necessarily implies that
Section 11(7) is not be declared otiose or unworkable, as
the learned counsel had tried to advance before us.
43. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in
order to harmoniously read the two views in Ajit Kaur’s
case and to give correct interpretation of the provision of
Section11(5) and 11(7) of this Act, we ought to take the
aid of Supreme Court’s judgement in Ajmer Kaur’s case.
We hold that until the surplus area has been finally
determined by the Collector and appeals/revisions have
been dismissed, the death of the landowner would
certainly cause affectation to the surplus area which
would be required to be redetermined in the hands of his
heirs.
44. Resultantly, where the surplus area has not been
finally determined and the matter is pending in appeals or
revisions before the Revenue Courts or before this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution, or before the
Supreme Court of India, death of the landowner would
cause affectation of surplus area which would be
required to be redetermined in the hands of the heirs of
the deceased landowner. Such an interpretation would
harmoniously construct the provisions of Section 11(5)
and 11(7) and also give a proper interpretation to both
the views expressed in Ajit Kaur’s case. However, we are
CWP No.4935 of 1982 6unable to uphold the judgements of this Court in Jasbir
Kaur’s case because Ajit Kaur’s case was not at all
considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench. As regards
Manjit Kaur’s case, even though Ajit Kaur’s case was
considered, the majority view had been entirely over
looked.”
In view of the binding opinion of the Hon’ble Full Bench, the
writ petitions are allowed, the orders dated 16.6.1976, 12.12.1978 and
7.10.1982 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Collector, Barnala,
for adjudication of the surplus area case of Kaka Singh, afresh, in the hands
of the legal heirs of Kaka Singh, namely the petitioners. No order as to
costs.
7.8.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE