Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1367 (PNJ)

Bag Chand v. State of Punjab

2001-12-05

KARL REDDY

body2001
ORDER Karl Reddy, F. C. - This is a petition under Section 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 read with Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 seeking to revise the order dated 25.6.1985 of District Collector, Agrarian, District Ferozepur, Headquarter at Fazilka and the order dated 15.5.2001 of the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. 2-3. The Collector Agrarian, Fazilka vide order dated 15.2.1977 declared 10 S.A. 2-3/4 U or 112K 9M land in village Beganwali, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur to be surplus area under the Old Act of the big landowner Hari Chand s/o Fatta Ram. Notices under Section 9(1) of the New Act were issued vide order dated 5.11.1985 of the Special Collector (Agrarian) Fazilka. Neither of these orders was challenged by the big landowner or the present petitioners. The challenge mounted by other parties to the orders of the Collector came to an end when R.O.Rs. 69, 70 and 71 were dismissed vide order dated 2.6.1994 of the Financial Commissioner, Appeals, The writ petition against that order was also dismissed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. 4. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 15.2.1977 of the Collector Agrarian, Fazilka on the ground that in proceedings under the New Act the Collector (Agrarian) Fazilka vide order dated 25.7.1996 held that no area was surplus in the hands of the heirs of the big landowner. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 5.11.1985 of the Special Collector (Agrarian), Fazilka under Section 9(1) of the New Act, directing the takeover of the area declared surplus in the hands of the big landowner on the ground that it is issued without notice to them. 5. The big landowner died on 7.5.1990. No land could be declared surplus in the hands of his heirs because no land was left with the landowner. The landowner did not even put in appearance before the Collector (Agrarian), Fazilka in proceedings under the New Act. As recorded in the order dated 25.7.1996, no mutation of inheritance was entered by the village patwari as the landowner had sold off his entire holding. 6. Land measuring 41K 11M and 27K 4M respectively was sold to petitioners No. 1 and 2 vide registered sale deeds dated 2.12.1981. These sales included, respectively, land measuring 9K 11M [121//10(6-17), 11(2-14)], and 11 K 4M [121//1(8-0), 122//5/(3-4)] that had been declared surplus under the Old Act. 6. Land measuring 41K 11M and 27K 4M respectively was sold to petitioners No. 1 and 2 vide registered sale deeds dated 2.12.1981. These sales included, respectively, land measuring 9K 11M [121//10(6-17), 11(2-14)], and 11 K 4M [121//1(8-0), 122//5/(3-4)] that had been declared surplus under the Old Act. A part of the surplus area was allegedly allotted to respondent No. 5, a landless person, vide order dated 13.12.1985 of the Special Collector (Agrarian) Fazilka. The petitioners allege that possession of the surplus area was never taken over by the State, that respondent No. 5 never entered into possession of the ]and allotted to him, that respondent No. 5 had obtained allotment fraudulently by filing a false affidavit that he was not in possession of any other land, and that proceedings for cancellation of the allotment are now under way. 7. The petitioners have stated that ex parte proceedings were taken against them but have not specifically challenged the finding of the Commissioner that petitioner No. 1 was served personally on 6.5.1985 and substituted service was effected on petitioner No. 1. Their appeal before the Commissioner was therefore time-barred. 8. The petitioners did not implead the allottees of the land measuring 12K 9M which is a pre-requisite for challenging the impugned orders. They did not implead even respondent No. 5 as a party before the Commissioner. However, respondent No. 5 appears to be a legal fiction to prolong the litigation since none of the land allotted to him corresponds with the land declared surplus. 9. On merits, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner. Proceedings under the New Act to determine the surplus area in the hands of the heirs did not lie because the heirs did not own or hold any land. The ruling cited as 1983 PLJ 319 does not apply to the facts of this case since the landowner was not in possession of any land, much less the land declared surplus. The petitioners must be credited with full knowledge that part of the land purchased from the big landowner in 1981 had been declared surplus. They cannot be permitted to now challenge the orders declaring 112K 9M surplus in the hands of the big landowner and the orders taking over and utilizing that area. The petition is dismissed. Announced. Petition dismissed.