Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 218 (PNJ)

State of Punjab v. Parnam Singh

2002-02-18

KARL REDDY

body2002
ORDER Karl Reddy, F.C. - The Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot vide order dated 13.2.1995 decided 31 connected appeals NA Nos. 1, 2, 9-11, 14-16, 21, 22, 25, 28-31, 35, 37-55, all of 1996, against the order dated 13.2.1995 of the SDO(C)-cum-Collector Agrarian, Faridkot, determining the surplus area of one Narinder Singh s/o Basant Singh, in the hands of his heirs, and remanded the case for fresh decision with certain observations. 2. Narinder Singh was a big landowner of village Naraingarh. His return in Form VII-A is the only document available on the record relating to proceedings under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter the Pepsu Act). He died on 4.3.1973 widowless and issueless. and apparently without filing a return under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter the New Act"). The Tehsildar Faridkot reported on 28.3.1984 that the Collector Faridkot vide order dated 31.1.1961 had allowed 30 SA to the landowner, granted specific exemptions, and declared 2981K 16M with specific Khasra Nos. as surplus area. Notices under Section 9(1) of the New Act issued in 1984, to the persons in ownership or occupation of surplus area. These proceedings appear to have been inconclusive. 3. The report of the Tehsildar Faridkot goes on to refer to a civil suit filed by the Government of Punjab against Narinder Singh, laying claim to the land. The suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.1962 of the Sub Judge Ist Class (B) Bhatinda. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide order dated 11.4.1975 dismissed as abated Regular First Appeal No. 78 of 1963, Narinder Singh having died in the interim, and Government having failed to bring his LRs. on record. 4. The inheritance of Narinder Singh was claimed by :- (1) Sukhchain Singh s/o Waryam Singh. His relationship with the deceased was undisputed; (2) Kashmira Singh s/o Lachhman Singh, on the strength of an unregistered Will; (3) Avtar Singh who did not figure in the pedigree table, but claimed to be the closest natural heir; (4) Amardeep Singh s/o Surinder Singh, on the strength of another unregistered Will; and (5) The Government of Punjab, on the principle of escheat. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade held that both Wills were shrouded in suspicion and referred the propounders to the Civil Court. Avtar Singh was unable to establish his claim. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade held that both Wills were shrouded in suspicion and referred the propounders to the Civil Court. Avtar Singh was unable to establish his claim. Mutation No. 38 was sanctioned in favour of Sukhchain Singh, the person who had the least number of degrees of ascent and descent as per the pedigree table, vide order dated 6.5.1981. 5. The DRO-cum-Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Faridkot vide order dated 8.6.1982 sanctioned Mutation No. 50 in favour of Kashmira Singh, on the basis of the judgment and decree dated 6.5.1981 of the Senior Sub Judge, Faridkot, which was based on an agreement between Sukhchain Singh and Kashmira Singh. Sukhchain Singh appealed against the order dated 8.6.1982, denying execution of any agreement, and claiming to have filed an appeal against the Civil Court judgment and decree. Certain tenants also filed appeals on the ground that their rights over the surplus area would be affected, since Kashmira Singh had died, leaving heirs. The District Collector Faridkot vide separate orders dated 28.6.1983 dismissed both appeals holding that the Civil Court decree though no doubt collusive has to be honoured in mutation proceedings, and diminution of surplus area is a matter to be considered in proceedings under the agrarian law. 6. The Collector Agrarian vide order dated 20.3.1989 in proceedings under the New Act deemed the heirs of Kashmira Singh i.e. Gursewak Singh, Rachhpal Singh, sons, and Rachhpal Kaur, Mohinder Kaur, daughters to be the owners of the land. He allowed each of the 4 heirs one unit of 7 h.a. i.e. 28 h.a. as permissible area, and declared the remaining area surplus. This order was challenged both by Gursewak Singh and Rachhpal Singh, on the grounds that their adults sons were entitled to one unit each and by the tenants, on the ground that no area had been declared TPA. The Commissioner Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur vide order dated 19.9.1990 remanded the case for fresh decision. Apparently a civil writ petition filed against the order of the Commissioner was decided by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide order dated 21.10.1991 with a direction to decide the matter within 6 months. However, a copy of this order is not available on file. 7. Apparently a civil writ petition filed against the order of the Commissioner was decided by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide order dated 21.10.1991 with a direction to decide the matter within 6 months. However, a copy of this order is not available on file. 7. The Collector Agrarian, Ferozepur vide order dated 13.2.1995 held that Avtar Singh, who had failed to establish his relationship with Narinder Singh in the mutation proceedings, was the natural heir of Narinder Singh. Accordingly, he allowed one unit of 7 h.a. as permissible area and declared the remaining land surplus. 31 appeals against this order were decided vide order dated 8.11.1996 by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, as aforesaid. The Commissioner set aside the finding qua Avtar Singh. He held that the progeny of Waryam Singh are the heirs of Narinder Singh. He held that 778K sold by Narinder Singh, through registered sale deeds i.e. 402K 12M to Jit Singh (NA 2/96), 139K 19 to Sardar Singh, 235K 10M to Gurbachan Singh (NA 1/96), the gift of 259K 14M to Phuman Singh (NA 10/96) in 1960, and the agreements to sell 528K to Parnam Singh (NA 28/96) and 307K 9M to Swinder Singh (NA 29 of 1996) executed in 1959, were bona fide transactions, and also much before the appointed day. The mortgagees with possession of 1035K 14M from before the appointed day were landowners under Section 3(6) of the New Act. He set aside the order of the Collector insofar as the above transactions were concerned, and remanded the case for allowing TPA to tenants as on the appointed day, and including any remaining land in the surplus pool. 8. Harnek Singh s/o Kartar Singh and others filed ROA No. 12 of 1996 seeking to revise the order dated 8.11.1996 of the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, in as far as it related to NA No. 28 of 1996 Parnam Singh and others-appellants v. State of Punjab and others-respondents. ROAs No. 3, 4, 5 & 6 of 1997. filed respectively by the unsuccessful appellants in NAs No. 50, 40, 18 & 37 of 1996, challenge the exemption granted by the Commissioner in respect of sales made after the appointed day and executed through allegedly collusive decree which impact on their TPA. 9. ROAs No. 3, 4, 5 & 6 of 1997. filed respectively by the unsuccessful appellants in NAs No. 50, 40, 18 & 37 of 1996, challenge the exemption granted by the Commissioner in respect of sales made after the appointed day and executed through allegedly collusive decree which impact on their TPA. 9. The State of Punjab filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC to be impleaded as co-petitioner rather than respondent in ROA 12 of 1996, and to file separate Grounds of Appeal/Revision. This was permitted vide order dated 30.7.1997 of the Financial Commissioner Appeals-II. Subsequently, Harnek Singh etc., appellants were permitted vide order dated 1.4.1998 of the Financial Commissioner Appeals-II to withdraw from the proceedings. The State through Collector Agrarian, Faridkot filed petition numbered ROR 12 of 1996. 10. The Grounds of Revision in ROR No. 12 of 1996 filed by the State of Punjab through the Collector Agrarian, Faridkot state that the land in dispute measuring 4245K 7M belongs to the State and not to any private landowner(s). As per Jamabandi for the year 2001-2002 BK (corresponding to the year 1944-45) of the revenue estate of Naraingarh, Tehsil and District Faridkot, the land belonged to Maharaja Harinder Singh, erstwhile ruler of Faridkot. In the year 1948-49, Faridkot State was merged with other States to form PEPSU. Maharaja Harinder Singh surrendered the land to the newly formed PEPSU State. As per note in the Jamabandi for the year 1955-56, PEPSU State was recorded as owner in possession. On the reorganisation of States in 1956, PEPSU was merged in the State of Punjab. As such the State of Punjab became the owner of the land in dispute. 11. The Grounds of Revision go on to say that Narinder Singh s/o Basant Singh fraudulently and in connivance with the Subordinate Officers and officials of the Revenue Department got his name entered in the revenue record, prior to the merger of PEPSU with Punjab, as occupancy tenant, dakhilkar and finally as owner of the land, vide Mutation Nos. 4, 5 and 6, respectively. The Government of Punjab vide order No. RD-6(21)13/51-861 dated 2.8.1956 directed the District Collector to nullify the earlier entries and enter the State as owner in cultivating Occupation of 5347K 15M less 31K 3M. The Sub Divisional Officer, Faridkot vide order dated 1.9.1996 reviewed the wrongly sanctioned mutation. 4, 5 and 6, respectively. The Government of Punjab vide order No. RD-6(21)13/51-861 dated 2.8.1956 directed the District Collector to nullify the earlier entries and enter the State as owner in cultivating Occupation of 5347K 15M less 31K 3M. The Sub Divisional Officer, Faridkot vide order dated 1.9.1996 reviewed the wrongly sanctioned mutation. However, instead of reviewing the mutations correctly, he recorded Narinder Singh as "malik adna" vide Mutation No. 31, Maharaja Harinder Singh of Faridkot as owner and Narinder Singh as dakhilkar vide Mutation No. 32 and Maharaja Harinder Singh as owner and Narinder Singh as Mujara Tabe Marzi Malik vide Mutation No. 33. The position was rectified by sanctioning Mutation No. 123 on 5.6.1998, leaving 31K 3M in the hands of Narinder Singh, the rest of land has been mutated in favour of the State of Punjab. 12. The order dated 30.11.1962 of the Sub Judge Ist Class (B), Bhatinda, dismissing Suit No. 107/176/95 of 15.5.1959/23.12.1961 filed by the State of Punjab for possession of land measuring 4162K 9M as per Jamabandi for the year 1955-56, situated in village Naraingarh, Tehsil Faridkot. District Bhatinda, and the order dated 11.4.1975 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing as abated Regular First Appeal No. 78 of 1963 against the order of the Sub Judge Ist Class (B), Bhatinda, are on the file of the Collector Agrarian. It is apparent that the petitoner State has suppressed relevant facts in ROA No. 12 of 1996. 13. The State of Punjab, having failed to recover possession of the land from Narinder Singh through a civil Suit, resorted to mutation proceedings to establish its title over the land. It is settled law that mutations do not confer title. Moreover, the claim of the State to ownership of the land cannot be decided in proceedings under the agrarian law. This is apart from the fact that the Civil Court had held against the plaintiff-State on the relevant issues : (6) Whether the land in dispute i.e. 5090K 8M vested in the State of PEPSU in 1950 A.D. and the possession thereof came under the State of PEPSU ? OPP (7) Whether in 1951 defendant No. 1, Narinder Singh, took possession of the land in dispute unlawfully and without any title and got himself entered as a Mozara Tabe Marzi under the Raja of Faridkot illegally. If so, its effect ? OPP (7) Whether in 1951 defendant No. 1, Narinder Singh, took possession of the land in dispute unlawfully and without any title and got himself entered as a Mozara Tabe Marzi under the Raja of Faridkot illegally. If so, its effect ? OPP (8) Whether Mutation No. 4 sanctioned on 25.4.1952, Mutation No. 5 sanctioned on 24.5.1953, and Mutation No. 6 sanctioned on 3.4.1954 in favour of defendant No. 1 are invalid and void and have been set aside and its effect ? OPP 14. The prayer of the petitioner-State in ROA No. 12 of 1996 is for setting aside the order dated 8.11.1996 of the Commissioner, on the ground that after the sanction of Muation No. 123 on 5.6.1998, barring 31K 3M in the hands of Narinder Singh, the rest of land now stands in the name of the State of Punjab. There is no prayer for setting aside the order dated 13.2.1995 of the Collector Agrarian allowing 7 h.a. permissible area to Avtar Singh, deemed landowner, and declaring the remaining area as surplus. In the meantime, in proceedings after the remand order of the Commissioner, the Collector Agrarian vide order dated 15.7.1998 has closed the surplus area proceedings. He has held that the Act shall not apply to land owned by or vested in the State Government, under Section 27(a) thereof, and hence there is no question of allowing the landowner any permissible area or of declaring any area surplus in his hands. It would appear that the petitioner-State has achieved its purpose. 15. The impugned order dated 13.2.1995 of the Collector Agrarian substitutes Avtar Singh as the natural heir of Narinder Singh for Sukhchain Singh s/o Waryam Singh. The evidence for this finding is not available on the record, and has not been discussed. Similarly, the Commissioner has improved upon the pedigree table on the reverse of Mutation No. 38 sanctioned 15 years earlier by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. He has endowed Waryam Singh, father of Sukhchain Singh, with 3 daughters - it is not known how and on what basis. Accordingly, these findings are set aside for want of evidence, apart from the principle that title cannot be decided in proceedings under the agrarian law. The sole heir of Narinder Singh for the purpose of the surplus proceedings is Sukhchain Singh s/o Waryam Singh. Accordingly, these findings are set aside for want of evidence, apart from the principle that title cannot be decided in proceedings under the agrarian law. The sole heir of Narinder Singh for the purpose of the surplus proceedings is Sukhchain Singh s/o Waryam Singh. The collusive judgment and decree suffered by Sukhchain Singh in favour of Kashmira Singh can be ignored in proceedings under the New Act, under Section 7(4)(i) thereof, since it diminishes the surplus area. It is ordered accordingly. 16. The report of the Tehsildar Faridkot cited in para 2 above refers to the order dated 31.1.1961 of the Collector Agrarian determining the surplus area of Narinder Singh under the Pepsu Act. Such order was required to be published in the Official Gazette under sub-section (6) of Section 32-D. The State should seek out the Gazette notification. In the event that the State is unable to do so despite best efforts, it should seek to bring secondary evidence on record. 17. The area determined as surplus vide order dated 31.1.1961 is deemed to have been acquired by the State Government under Section 32-E of the Pepsu Act. A transfer or disposition of land effected after 21.8.1956 shall not affect the right of the State Government to the surplus area to which it would be entitled but for such transfer or disposition under Section 32-FF. It is only if the order of the Collector dated 31.1.1961 cannot be proved on the record that proceedings under the New Act qua the heirs of Narinder Singh must be held to have commenced ab initio. 18. Accordingly, the impugned orders of the Commissioner and the Collector are set aside. The case is remanded to the Collector for fresh decision in accordance with law and facts in regard to the determination of surplus area under the Pepsu Act and the validity of sales, mortgages, tenancies, and gifts of land, by Narinder Singh, and persons claiming to be his successors. The Collector should also decide whether any of he tenants are entitled to permissible area in the light of ruling cited as 1974 PLJ 74. 19. The Collector should also decide whether any of he tenants are entitled to permissible area in the light of ruling cited as 1974 PLJ 74. 19. Certain of the respondents in ROA No. 12 of 1996 have filed CWP No. 10489 of 1998 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, challenging the order dated 28.4.1998 of Government (in the Department of Revenue and Rehabilitation) to the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot, to incorporate the reviewed mutations in the Jamabandis from 1955-56 to date, and the order of the SDO(C)-cum-Collector Agrarian, Faridkot, to the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Faridkot, to incorporate Mutation No. 123 in the revenue record. The High Court has directed that status quo as regards possession be maintained. The State of Punjab will not be able to enforce its alleged ownership rights over the land until that stay order is vacated. A copy of this order is therefore being sent to the Financial Commissioner Revenue for such action as he may deem fit. To be communicated. Petition allowed.