Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 297 (PNJ)

Bant Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab

2003-02-17

N.K.SODHI

body2003
ORDER N.K. Sodhi, J. - This order will dispose of three Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 3006 to 3008 of 1983 in which common questions of law and fact arise. Counsel for the parties are agreed that the decision in CWP 3006 of 1983 in which arguments were addressed, would govern the other two writ petitions as well. 2. There has been a long drawn out litigation between the parties and it is necessary to refer to the same in order to decide the short question which arises for consideration in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. One Uttam Singh son of Dayal Singh is a big landowner in Villages Aulakh, Alamwala and Khaneki Dhab, Tehsil Muktsar, District Ferozepore. His surplus area case was decided by the Collector, Ferozepore by order dated 27.7.1962 declaring 47 SA 7-1/2 Units of land as surplus in his hands. The landowner went up in appeal before the Commissioner on the ground that he had not been properly served and that the ex-parte proceedings should not have been taken against him. By order dated 22.7.1963 the appeal was allowed and the case was remanded for a fresh decision. The Collector again, by his order dated 24.1.1964, re-assessed 47 SA 7-1/2 Units of land as surplus with the landowner. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the landowner against went up in appeal before the Commissioner who by his order dated 1.6.1964 allowed the same and remanded the case with a direction that the surplus area be determined afresh in accordance with law. 4. While the surplus area case was pending before the Collector on remand by the Commissioner, the petitioners herein filed an application before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (as amended up to date and hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the purchase of 58 kanals 5 marlas of land out of the holding of Uttam Singh. This application was allowed on 27.10.1965 on payment of Rs. 6500/- which were paid to the landowner. 5. The surplus area case of the landowner was again taken up by the Collector who, by his order dated 4.1.1966, decided the same. This application was allowed on 27.10.1965 on payment of Rs. 6500/- which were paid to the landowner. 5. The surplus area case of the landowner was again taken up by the Collector who, by his order dated 4.1.1966, decided the same. One Jeeta Singh filed an appeal before the Commissioner on the ground that he was a tenant on the land at the time of the enforcement of the Act and that the area under his tenancy should have been left out being the tenants permissible area. This appeal was rejected by the Commissioner by his order dated 7.11.1966. The petitioners had also filed an appeal against the order dated 4.1.1966 on the ground that they had purchased the land from the landowner and that it should not be utilized for the resettlement of tenants. This appeal was also dismissed on 20.3.1967. They filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner which was accepted by order dated 8.9.1967 and the case remanded with a direction to hear the purchasers under Section 18 of the Act. The Collector again decided the surplus area case and allowed 30 SA as the permissible area to the landowner and after deducting the land purchased under Section 18 of the Act by the petitioners, he declared 41 SA 15-1/2 Units as surplus in the hands of Uttam Singh by order dated 20.11.1968. It is pertinent to mention here that Labh Singh, Manna Singh and Hakam Singh had been resettled on 27.7.1962 as tenants over the surplus area declared in the hands of Uttam Singh. Labh Singh and Manna Singh, the resettled tenants, filed two separate appeals against the order of the Collector dated 20.11.1968 which were allowed by order dated 12.5.1969 and the case was remanded to the Collector for a fresh decision in the light of the observations made by the Commissioner. The petitioners challenged the order of the Commissioner in a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner which was dismissed in limine on 5.8.1969 and the order of the Commissioner dated 12.5.1969 was upheld. 6. In compliance with the remand order passed by the Commissioner on 12.5.1969 the Collector held a de novo inquiry and by his order dated 22.4.1970 declared 22.4.1970 declared 44 SA 3/4 Units as surplus in the hands of Uttam Singh. 6. In compliance with the remand order passed by the Commissioner on 12.5.1969 the Collector held a de novo inquiry and by his order dated 22.4.1970 declared 22.4.1970 declared 44 SA 3/4 Units as surplus in the hands of Uttam Singh. Three separate appeals were filed against this order - one by the landowner, the other by one Mangal Ram a tenant with whom we are not concerned in these proceedings and the third appeal was filed by the petitioners. All the three appeals were disposed of by a common order dated 10.5.1971 by the Additional Secretary, Revenue exercising the powers of the Commissioner. Petitioners in their appeal wanted the land purchased by them to be exempted from the surplus pool but that was not allowed and their appeal was rejected. While partly allowing the appeal of the landowner and remanding the case to the Collector, the Commissioner observed as under :- "In this view of the matter I hold that Uttam Singh cannot agitate, at this juncture, that the area of 5 S. As. 8 Units purchased by Bant Singh and others under section 18 of the Act should be excluded while assessing his total holding." 7. While surplus area proceedings were still going on, the petitioners filed an application under Section 9 of the Act seeking ejectment of Labh Singh respondent who was a resettled tenant over the land. The ejectment was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent. The Assistant Collector allowed the ejectment application on 31.3.1971. Labh Singh filed an appeal before the Collector who allowed the same on 25.9.1972 and dismissed the ejectment application. Petitioners filed a further appeal before the Commissioner who reversed the order of the Collector and restored that of the Assistant Collector and ordered ejectment of Labh Singh respondent. Labh Singh then filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner who allowed the same on 14.6.1974 and held that the tenant was not in arrears of rent on the date the application for ejectment was made. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. 8. In pursuance to the order of remand dated 10.5.1971 passed by the Commissioner, the Collector took up the surplus area case of the landowner and declared 44 SA 3/4 Units as surplus in his hands. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. 8. In pursuance to the order of remand dated 10.5.1971 passed by the Commissioner, the Collector took up the surplus area case of the landowner and declared 44 SA 3/4 Units as surplus in his hands. After noticing the history of the case, the Collector in his order dated 28.12.1971 observed as under :- "Since the claims of Bant Singh and others, who had made purchases under section 18 of the Act in village Alamwala have been dis-allowed by the learned Commissioner, Jullundur Division, vide his order dated 10.5.1971, they will not affect the rights of the resettled tenants viz. Labh Singh s/o Hardit Singh, Man Singh s/o Gajjan Singh, Hakim Singh s/o Kishan Singh in village Aulak, where the entire area has been declared as surplus." This order was upheld in appeal by the Commissioner and also by the Financial Commissioner by his order dated 30.11.1981. 9. Having failed in their attempt to eject the resettled tenants from the land in dispute, the petitioner again filed on 12.8.1980, an ejectment application under Section 9 of the Act seeking ejectment of Labh Singh respondent who was a resettled tenant over the surplus area declared in the hands of Uttam Singh. This time again, the ejectment was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent but for the subsequent period. The application was contested by Labh Singh respondent who pleaded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and, therefore, the petitioners could not seek his ejectment. The Assistant Collector by his order dated 30.12.1980 allowed the application and ordered the ejectment of Labh Singh. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Collector which was dismissed on 6.8.1981. A revision petition was then filed by him before the Commissioner who, too, dismissed the same on 20.4.1982. Labh Singh respondent then filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner who allowed the same on 18.5.1983 holding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He also held that the land in dispute formed part of the surplus pool and was allotted to Labh Singh as a resettled tenant under the utilization scheme and, therefore, the petitioners could not be allowed to purchase the same particularly when the surplus area of Uttam Singh, the original landowner, had not been finally determined. He also held that the land in dispute formed part of the surplus pool and was allotted to Labh Singh as a resettled tenant under the utilization scheme and, therefore, the petitioners could not be allowed to purchase the same particularly when the surplus area of Uttam Singh, the original landowner, had not been finally determined. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and am of the view that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The claim of the petitioners that they are the owners of the land in dispute on the basis of a purchase made by them under Section 18 of the Act cannot be accepted because at the time when they made the purchase the surplus area proceedings of Uttam Singh landowner had not been finalised and were still pending on remand and, therefore, it could not then be known whether the land purchased by them would be included in the reserved area of the landowner or would form part of his surplus land. This apart, the surplus area in the hands of the landowner was finally determined by the Collector by his order dated 28.12.1971 the relevant part of which has been reproduced above. In this order, the Collector had observed that the purchase made by the petitioners would not affect the rights of Labh Singh and other resettled tenants over the land in dispute. The petitioners did not challenge this order in appeal or in revision. It was the landowner who went up on appeal against the order dated 28.12.1971 and he failed before the Commissioner and also before the Financial Commissioner. In other words, the order dated 28.12.1971 had become final between the parties and it is their common case that the land in dispute finally formed part of the surplus area in the hands of Uttam Singh landowner. In this view of the matter, the petitioners cannot make a claim of ownership on the basis of a purchase which was much prior to the final declaration of the surplus area. The previous order of the Financial Commissioner disallowing the ejectment application cannot possibly operate as res-judicata between the parties because at the time when the ejectment proceedings were initiated the surplus area proceedings had not yet become final. The previous order of the Financial Commissioner disallowing the ejectment application cannot possibly operate as res-judicata between the parties because at the time when the ejectment proceedings were initiated the surplus area proceedings had not yet become final. As already observed, these became final only on 30.11.1981 when the Financial Commissioner dismissed the revision petition filed by the landowner. Moreover, it is clear from the aforesaid facts that all attempts made by Uttam Singh landowner to get his permissible area determined after ignoring the sale made in favour of the petitioners, had failed. Similarly, all attempts made by the petitioners to have the land in dispute excluded from the surplus area of the landowner had also failed. This being so, the petitioners cannot be held to be owners of the land in dispute. No fault can thus, be found with the impugned order of the Financial Commissioner in this regard. 11. There is yet another reason why the petitioners must fail. They are guilty of suppressing from this court the orders dated 22.4.1970, 28.12.1971 and 30.3.1972 by which the surplus area of the landowner was finally determined by the Collector. As already observed, the order dated 28.12.1971 became final between the parties and the petitioners did not challenge the same. It was challenged by the landowner who failed before the Commission and his revision petition was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on 30.11.1981. Had these facts and orders been placed on the record and reference made to them, it would have been clear that the surplus area proceedings had not finally concluded between the parties till 30.11.1981. All these facts were brought to the notice of the court by the respondents. This clever device adopted by the petitioners also disentitled them to claim any relief in the present proceedings. In the result, the writ petitions fail and the same stand dismissed with costs. Petitions dismissed.