PETITIONER: SUDARSHAN NATH & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/04/2000 BENCH: S.S.Ahamad, Doraiswamy JUDGMENT:
Raju, J.
The appellants, who are the legal representatives of
the original landholder Raghubinder Nath and were
unsuccessful before the High Court, have come up before this
Court against the order dated 20.8.91 of the Division Bench
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition
No.3062 of 1991, declining to interfere with the order dated
1.8.90 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals). Late
Raghubinder Nath, who was said to be a big landowner, was
governed by the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land
Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as `the Land
Tenures Act). By a proceeding dated 30.6.60 in exercise of
the powers of the Collector under Sections 3 and 4 of the
Land Tenures Act, the ceiling area of the said landowner
came to be determined and an extent of 3 Standard Acres and
9 ¼ Units were declared as surplus. On 31.3.76, the
Collector Agrarian, Gurdaspur, after completion of the
consolidation proceedings in the area, passed an order
declaring that there is no area left surplus and ordered the
case to be filed. While matter stood thus, the
predecessor-in-interest of respondents 2 and 3, Late Jagat
Ram, to whom 20 kanal and 13 marlas were said to have been
given on lease even prior to 1953, filed a suit for
declaration that he, being a tenant, is eligible for the
allotment of the surplus area measuring about 56 kanal and 4
marlas with a consequential direction to the Collector,
Gurdaspur, to allot the surplus land to him. No doubt, to
these proceedings the landowner was not impleaded as a party
but only the State, represented by the Collector, was made a
party. The said suit came to be decreed on 7.11.79,
ex-parte. When the said plaintiff filed the Execution
Petition No.5 of 1980, the learned Subordinate Judge
adverted to the fact that the legal heirs of Raghubinder
Nath have filed an appeal against the order of the Collector
and inasmuch as the matter has been stayed, the vesting
cannot take effect and the allotment order could not be
issued at that stage. On that view, the execution
proceedings were held to be premature and consequently
dismissed on 1.11.81. In the meanwhile, on 29.9.80 the
Collector Agrarian, Gurdaspur, passed an order declaring 3
Standard Acres and 9 ¼ Units to be the surplus area. This
order was challenged by the original landholder on an appeal
before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, but the same
came to be dismissed on 10.2.82. The challenge was further
pursued before the Financial Commissioner by means of a
Revision Petition. When the above proceedings were pending,
the Collector, Gurdaspur, appears to have allotted the
surplus land, as declared, to Late Jagat Ram on 24.3.82.
Pursuant to the allotment so made, on 30.3.82 Jagat Ram was
said to have deposited Rs.5,900/-.
The revision filed by Raghubinder Nath before the
Financial Commissioner against the order passed by the
Commissioner came to be disposed of on 10.3.83 with a
direction that the landowner should be given an opportunity
of selecting permissible area and the allottee accommodated
elsewhere on an equivalent land. In doing so, the
revisional authority was of the view that the Revenue
Officers are bound to give an opportunity to a landowner of
being heard and selecting his permissible area under Section
24-A(2) of the Land Tenures Act, after consolidation
proceedings, if the land declared surplus had not been
utilised by them. It is interesting to notice that even the
revisional authority did not approve of the bona fide nature
of the transfers said to have been effected in 1954 and
adversely commented upon the omission to produce copies of
the Khasra girdawaris for the period subsequent to the
execution Sale Deed dated 2.5.54. On 2.2.84, the original
landowner Raghubinder Nath died and the mutation was said to
have been sanctioned on 16.1.86 in favour of the appellants.
Pursuant to the order dated 10.3.83 passed by the
Financial Commissioner, the Collector Agrarian pursued the
matter further and by his proceedings dated 10.6.86 came to
the conclusion that the heirs of Late Raghubinder Nath were
entitled to reserve the area for themselves in accordance
with the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972
(hereinafter referred to as `the Land Reforms Act) and that
the total land holding of Raghubinder Nath worked out to 43
Std. Acres 2 Units (33 Std. Acres 9 ¼ Units plus 9 Std.
Acres 8 ¼ Units sold already). Since Raghubinder Nath died
leaving seven legal heirs, there is no surplus land with
them and consequently the allotment made in favour of Jagat
Ram was not only held bad but stood cancelled and he has to
be accommodated elsewhere in terms of the directions of the
Financial Commissioner dated 10.3.83. The Naib Tehsildar
(Agrarian) was directed to put up a proposal for allotment
of alternative land equivalent to the area to be given to
Jagat Ram. As against the said proceedings, Jagat Ram filed
an appeal before the Commissioner. During pendency of the
same, Jagat Ram died on 2.10.86 and the legal
representatives were brought on record on 13.1.87. This
appeal came to be dismissed on 16.5.88 on the ground that
the area declared surplus did not vest in the State under
Section 8 of the Act for want of notice as required under
Section 9(1) of the Act. The allottee Jagat Ram was also
held to have not proved his possession of the lands.
Thereupon, the legal heirs of Jagat Ram pursued the matter
before the Financial Commissioner by filing a revision and
his legal heirs continued the same on account of his death.
By the proceedings dated 1.8.90, the revision petition was
allowed and the orders of the Commissioner dated 16.5.88
came to be set aside holding that the declaration of the
surplus area in the year 1960/1980 held the field and was
never set aside and that Jagat Ram, the allottee, having
deposited the purchase amount on 30.3.82 in the Treasury,
became the owner of the land on such deposit. It was also
held that in view of the death of the original landowner in
the year 1984 and the utilisation of the land even during
the life- time of the landowner, who did not challenge the
same successfully, the orders of the Commissioner cannot be
sustained. Aggrieved against the said proceedings, the
heirs of the Raghubinder Nath approached the High Court
unsuccessfully. Hence, this appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellants placed strong
reliance upon the orders dated 31.3.76 under which the
Collector held that there is no area left as surplus, the
further orders dated 10.3.83 passed by the Financial
Commissioner holding that the landholder should be given an
opportunity to select the permissible area and the tenant
Jagat Ram should be accommodated elsewhere on an equivalent
land, and the orders passed on 10.6.86 by the Collector as
well as that of the Commissioner made on 16.5.88 to contend
that the appellants had acquired rights to retain the
entirety of the lands, in view of the fact that the lands
declared surplus were not also utilised by taking over
possession of the same. It was also strenuously contended
that there was no vesting of the lands declared surplus in
accordance with law and, therefore, the Financial
Commissioner committed an error in interfering with the
orders of the Commissioner and the Collector. Argued the
learned counsel further that the High Court, in dismissing
the Writ Petition without assigning any reason whatsoever,
committed a serious mistake and, therefore, the appeal
before this court merits acceptance.
Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondents,
who are the legal heirs of Jagat Ram, contended that the
orders of the Financial Commissioner dated 1.8.90 has
considered the issues arising in their proper perspective on
the indisputable position arising out of the fixing of
ceiling and declaration of surplus lands of the landholder
as early as on 30.6.60, the subsequent allotment in favour
of Jagat Ram on 24.3.82 and the deposit of a sum of
Rs.5900/- on 30.3.82 which proved utilisation of the surplus
land even during the life time of the landholder who died
only on 2.2.84. It was further contended for those
respondents that the possession of the lands declared
surplus and allotted to Jagat Ram were always in his
possession and this position being an indisputable fact on
record the Commissioner and the Collector in passing orders
on 10.6.86 and 16.5.88 merely proceeded on surmises to
sustain the claim of the appellants and therefore the
Financial Commissioner was right in granting relief to the
respondents, on a proper appreciation of all the facts and
by applying the correct principles of law. The appeal,
according to them, had no merits.
The first respondent-State also affirmed the factual
position that the area in question was declared surplus and
utilised during the life time of the big landholder
Raghubinder Nath and, therefore, the appellants have no
rights whatsoever to be vindicated and consequently the
appeal only merited rejection.
We have been taken through the various orders passed
at different times by the concerned authorities and we are
only surprised to notice that such orders were being made
from time to time taking into account one or the other of
the facts without a comprehensive consideration of the
totality of facts and the law governing the case on hand.
The impugned orders of the Financial Commissioner dated
1.8.90 only analysed all those relevant aspects in their
proper perspective and no exception could be taken to the
action of the High Court in declining to interfere, though
it would have been proper and desirable for the High Court
to have given some reasons to disclose its mind, instead of
rejecting the Writ Petition by a cryptic order.
Shorn of all controversies, there are certain
unalloyed facts which can neither be ignored nor can escape
the attention of anyone expected to adjudicate the
controversy in issue and which have, in our view, been
rightly taken note of by the Financial Commissioner, in
passing the impugned order dated 1.8.90. Even the Financial
Commissioner who passed orders on 10.3.83 on a revision
petition filed by the landholder Raghubinder Nath recognised
certain facts which are indisputable on record and the
appellants, who strongly rely upon it to derive benefits
given thereunder cannot afford to ignore or go behind the
same. The fact that Jagat Ram was a tenant on the appointed
date, as a consequence of which only the lands were allotted
to him has not also been disturbed or specifically set
aside. Except for the fact that the Financial Commissioner,
in passing those orders merely took into account Section
24-A(2) of the Land Tenures Act to grant a further
opportunity to select the permissible area, by observing
that another opportunity to separate the area after
consolidation has to be given to the landowner, there is
no interference even by this authority of the fact that the
ceiling and surplus in respect of this landholder has been
already fixed, since then only the question of selecting the
permissible area arise, for the landholder. The Financial
Commissioner specifically recorded a finding about the lack
of bona fide in the sale claimed to have been made by the
landholder in 1954 in the following terms: The petitioner
has however, failed to prove his bona fides regarding the
land transferred by him in 1954. The revenue record does
not show that possession of the land alleged to have been
sold in 1954 was actually transferred to the vendee in 1954.
This transfer as claimed has not been accepted as bona fide
by the learned Collector. If the land had been transferred,
the landowner should have produced copies of the khasra
girdawaris of the crop subsequent to the execution of the
sale deed dated 2.5.54. Since this has not been done, the
transfer of the land as claimed by the landowner has been
rightly disallowed by the learned Collector and endorsed by
the learned Commissioner.
The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants late
Raghubinder Nath was considered to be a big landholder and
by an order dated 30.6.60, the ceiling was fixed in respect
of his holding and after ignoring the sales claimed to have
been made after 15.4.53 (the appointed date for purposes of
the 1953 Land Tenures Act) an extent of 3 Std. Acres 9 ¼
Units of land were declared surplus. After consolidation,
the area in the hands of the landowner seem to have
increased to 35 Std. Acres-10 ½ Units and thereafter on
29.9.80 the extent of 3 Std. Acres 9 ¼ Units was once again
declared surplus by specifying the items of lands also viz.,
“Khasra Nos.86-R/13 (6K- 4M), 1461/2 (0-15M), 1461/3
(1K-17M) 1462 (20K-12M) total measuring 29 K – 9 Marlas – 3
Standard Acres 9 ¼ Units. The remaining area of the
landowner was held to be his reserved area. Thereafter, on
24.3.82, the Collector allotted the surplus land to Jagat
Ram and thereupon Jagat Ram deposited the sum of Rs.5900/-.
This allotment in his favour was on the basis that he was
the tenant of the lands which came to be declared surplus,
also. It is only in view of all these, the learned counsel
on either side concentrated at the time of hearing before us
on the basic question as to whether the lands declared
surplus could be said to have been utilised even during the
life time of the landholder viz. prior to 2.2.84 when
Raghubinder Nath died.
The decision in Bhagat Gobind Singh vs. F.C., Punjab
[1972 PLJ 319] on which strong reliance was placed for the
appellants may not be of any assistance in this case. It
could be seen from the said judgment that the remand and
further opportunity given for the landholder was in the
context of the orders/instructions of the State Government
dated 22.7.61 to save, if at all, bona fide sales made
between 15.4.53 and 30.7.58 and more so, due to the reason
that there was no scope in that case when the ceiling was
fixed and surplus declared to undertake such an exercise.
So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the
sales were held to be not bona fide by all the authorities
and this fact also has been approved by the very orders of
the Financial Commissioner dated 10.3.83. So far as the
decision of this court reported in Rameshwar & Ors. Vs.
Jot Ram & Anr. [1976(1) SCC 194 = 1975 PLJ 454] is
concerned, in construing Section 18(4) of the Land Tenures
Act, this Court held that on the deposit of even the first
instalment of the purchase price the tenant shall be deemed
to have become the owner of the land. The dispute sought to
be with reference to the vesting as well as taking
possession also has no merit. Since the lands were already
in the possession of the tenant Jagat Ram, who happened to
be the allotee also, there is no substance in the challenge.
The landholder or his heirs, having not challenged
specifically the order dated 24.3.82, cannot be allowed to
dispute this factual position at all. The Financial
Commissioner chose to give relief to the heirs of Jagat Ram
only on the ground that the lands declared surplus came to
be also utilised effectively under the Punjab Utilisation of
Surplus Area Scheme, 1973 before 2.2.84 when the landholder
died and therefore, there was nothing for the appellants to
re-agitate the matter once over again to revise the ceiling
area taking advantage of the death of the erstwhile
landholder. The reasons, which weighed with the Financial
Commissioner for granting relief to the heirs of Jagat Ram
by passing the order dated 1.8.90, cannot be said to be
either illegal or suffer any serious infirmities whatsoever
to call for any interference in this appeal.
The appeal consequently fails and shall stand
dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.