Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 191 (PNJ)

Bhavkaran Singh v. State of Punjab

2002-02-12

KARL REDDY

body2002
ORDER Karl Reddy, F.C. - These are petitions under Section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 seeking to revise : (a) in ROR No. 196 of 1995-96, the order dated 17.7.1995 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, and the order dated 20.1.1984 of the Collector (Agrarian), Rupanagar (hereinafter the Collector); (b) in ROR No. 566 of 1994-95, the order dated 5.6.1995 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, and the order dated 18.2.1991 of the SDO(C) cum-(Agrarian), Rupnagar [hereinafter, the SDO(C)-cum-Collector]. 2. Umrao Singh s/o Avtar Singh, big landowner of village Manauli, filed a declaration under the Old Act on 17.6.1958. He owned land in Tehsil Kharar, Ropar, Patti, Jagadhari, and Ambala i.e. in more than one Tehsil and District, and after the re-organisation of Punjab, in more than one State. Jurisdictional issues ensured that his surplus area was not determined until the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide order dated 10.2.1981 in CWP No. 3525 of 1979 laid down guidelines for the Collector. 3. Since the number of persons likely to be affected was numerous, the Collector felt it expedient to effect service on them by proclamation in the villages where the land was situate. Bhavkaran Singh etc., petitioners in ROR No. 196 had purchased land in village Manauli on 15.12.1981 and 16.12.1981. Sita Rain etc., petitioners in ROR No. 566 had purchased land in village Beli on 10.3.1983. Proclamation was effected in village Manauli and village Beli vide Rapat No. 19 dated 15.9.1983 and Rapat No. 92 dated 26.10.1983, in the respective Roznamchas. All persons who did not appear before the Collector were proceeded against ex parte. 4. The Collector vide order dated 20.1.1984 held that the proceedings under the Old Act abated after the coming into force of the new Act. The lands disposed of by Umrao Singh during his lifetime could not be taken into consideration for determination of the surplus area in the hands of his son Satinder Singh. The area in the hands of Satinder Singh as on 8.4.1978, the date of death of Umrao Singh, came to 50.60 ordinary h.a. or 23.58 h.a. first quality land. The Collector allowed one unit of 7 h.a. first quality land each to Satinder Singh and his adult son Pushpinder Singh and declared 9.52 h.a. first quality land surplus. Entire land owned in Haryana would be surplus. 5. The Collector allowed one unit of 7 h.a. first quality land each to Satinder Singh and his adult son Pushpinder Singh and declared 9.52 h.a. first quality land surplus. Entire land owned in Haryana would be surplus. 5. The Financial Commissioner Revenue vide order dated 28.9.1987 accepted ROR No. 599 of 1983-84 State of Punjab v. Satinder Singh, and set aside the order dated 20.1.1984 of the Collector. The Financial Commissioner Revenue vide order dated 9.5.1988 in Misc. ROR 49 of 1987-88 reviewed his earlier order and upheld the order of the Collector. 6. Part of the land in village Manauli purchased by Bhavkaran Singh etc. was declared surplus in the hands of Satinder Singh vide order dated 20.1.1984 of the Collector. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 17.7.1995 dismissed the appeal filed on 6.3.1990 *as time-barred *since all issues had already been decided by the Financial Commissioner. 7. Sita Ram etc. were served with notices under Section 9(1) of the New Act in respect of land measuring 49K situated in village Beli No. 6. Their contention that the land was not recorded as surplus in the Jamabandi at the time of purchase was rejected by the SDO(C)-cum-Collector vide order dated 18.2.1991. The appeal against that order was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 5.6.1995 on the ground that a note in the Jamabandi for 1960-61 showed the land to be surplus area. This conclusion is unsound since the surplus area proceeding had been remanded more than once after 1960-61. 8. Hence the present RORs. The issues are the same namely whether the petitioners were served in accordance with law before ex parte orders were taken against them vide order dated 20.1.1984 of the Collector [since in effect, Sita Ram etc. are challenging the order dated 20.1.1984 of the Collector and not the order dated 18.2.1991 of the SDO(C)-cum-Collector]. Accordingly, both petitions are disposed of vide a common order. However, a copy of the order shall be placed on each file. 9. are challenging the order dated 20.1.1984 of the Collector and not the order dated 18.2.1991 of the SDO(C)-cum-Collector]. Accordingly, both petitions are disposed of vide a common order. However, a copy of the order shall be placed on each file. 9. Sub-section (3) of Section 90 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 which relates to mode of service of summons reads as under : "If the summons relate to a case in which persons having the same interest are so numerous that personal service on all of them is not reasonably practicable, it may, if the Revenue Officer or Revenue Court so directs, be served by delivery of a copy thereof on such of those persons as the Officer or Court nominates in this behalf and by proclamation of the contents thereof for the information of other persons interested." The big landonwers holding was scattered in a large number of villages. Substituted service was effected in 22 villages including Manauli and Beli. Numerous parties had a common interest in the surplus area proceedings, but each party had an interest in some specific parcel of land. They did not have the same interest. Accordingly, it must be held that the petitioners were not served in accordance with law. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeals before the Commissioner required to be condoned. 10. It is mentioned in the Collectors order that Satinder Singh inherited land not only from his father, but also from his mother Gurdial Kaur, and his stepmother Pritam Kaur. The substituted service by proclamation was addressed to persons in possession of, or having an interest in, the land of Umrao Singh, and not to persons in possession of, or having an interest in, the land of Satinder Singh. It is not evident from the file whether the petitioners had purchased the land inherited by Satinder Singh front Umrao Singh, or land inherited or acquired by Satinder Singh from any other source. In the latter event, it must again be held that the petitioners were not served in accordance with law. 11. Counsel for respondent No. 2 has argued that it is not permissible at this stage to review the order dated 9.5.1988 of the Financial Commissioner Revenue in Misc. ROR 49 of 1987-88. The petitioners were not party to those proceedings. In the latter event, it must again be held that the petitioners were not served in accordance with law. 11. Counsel for respondent No. 2 has argued that it is not permissible at this stage to review the order dated 9.5.1988 of the Financial Commissioner Revenue in Misc. ROR 49 of 1987-88. The petitioners were not party to those proceedings. In any event, that order decided exclusively the question whether the Collector had jurisdiction to decide the surplus area case under the New Act when the holding of the big landowner extended to more than one Tehsil, District, and State. It is not proposed to differ with the finding regarding jurisdiction, or otherwise review that order. 12. Counsel for respondent No. 2 has cited 1981 PLJ 316 in support of his contention that the Collector has no jurisdiction to select the reserved area of the landowner. The record reveals that the Collector had heard arguments and reserved his order on 20.12.1983. Thereafter he sought a report regarding the holding of Satinder Singh (as on 8.4.1978). The Naib Tehsildar Agrarian submitted the report on 4.1.1984. Since Satinder Singh had not filed a declaration under Section 5 of the New Act, the Collector made the selection on his behalf. 13. Counsel for respondent No. 2 has cited a large number of rulings including 19621 PLJ 125, 1968 PLJ 338 and 1981 PLJ 316, in support of his contention that the petitioners cannot insist that they be adjusted on the reserved area of the big landowner. The petitioners have a right to be heard. Whether they can be afforded any relief is yet to be decided. The matter is remitted to the Collector Agrarian Ropar for affording the petitioners an opportunity to be heard, and deciding the matter in accordance with law. The parties should appear before him on 4.3. 2002. To be communicated. Petition accepted.