Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 857 (PNJ)

State of Punjab v. Bakhshish Singh

2003-05-30

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - State of Punjab has preferred the present appeal against the impugned judgment of learned Additional District Judge, Patiala dated 23.11.1979 setting aside the judgment and decree of learned Sub Judge IIIrd Class, Patiala dated 4.8.1978. 2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein (plaintiffs in the main suit) filed the suit against the State of Punjab for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of 4/5th share of agricultural land measuring 367 bighas 2 biswas situated in village Bara Tehsil Sirhind District Patiala and the orders dated 20.4.1963 passed by the Special Collector, dated 13.8.1963 passed by Commissioner Patiala and dated 3.4.1964 passed by Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh are illegal, null and void as the gift deed in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 by their father Narain Singh was ignored and declared the suit land as surplus leaving 30 standard acres with Narain Singh. 3. It was inter alia contended in their main suit that their father Narain Singh had made gift of 4/5 share of his land mentioned above in their favour and had also got entries made in rozmancha of the Halqa Patwari on 30.8.1952 and since then they had been in possession of the land gifted to them. Narain Singh had also executed a registered gift that dated 8.10.1956 in their favour which was given effect to by the revenue authorities by sanctioning a mutation No. 578 on 23.11.1956 and that the suit land was ancestral property qua them as their father Narain Singh was constituting a Joint Hindu Family. 4. The grouse thus, shown was that Collector Agrarian (Special Collector II) Punjab, Chandigarh ignored the gift made in their favour and declared the suit land as surplus leaving only 30 standard acres of land with their father Narain Singh and that the subsequent orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are also illegal and void as they too had failed to recognise the gift made by their father lawfully. 5. The claim of the plaintiff (respondents No. 1 to 4 herein) was refuted by the State of Punjab on many grounds but the main plea taken by the State was that roznamacha of the Patwari was of doubtful nature and no mutation was sanctioned to give effect to the same in the revenue records. 5. The claim of the plaintiff (respondents No. 1 to 4 herein) was refuted by the State of Punjab on many grounds but the main plea taken by the State was that roznamacha of the Patwari was of doubtful nature and no mutation was sanctioned to give effect to the same in the revenue records. So far as the subsequent gift dated 8.10.56 is concerned, it was asserted on behalf of State of Punjab that the same was hit by section 32 FF as it was made after coming into force of Pepsu Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and consequently the suit land was rightly declared as surplus. 6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- "1. Whether plaintiffs are owner in possession to the extent of 4/5th share in the suit land as alleged in para 2 of the plaint ? OPP 2. Whether orders dated 20.4.1963 passed by the Special Collector, dated 13.8.63 passed by the Commissioner Patiala and order of the Financial Commissioner Patiala dated 3.4.64 are illegal, null and void for the reasons stated in the plaint ? OPP 3. Whether the civil court has the jurisdiction to try the present suit under section 47 of the Pepsu Tenancy in Agricultural Land ? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs have got no cause of action ? OPD 5. Whether the suit is within time ? 6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit as alleged in preliminary objections ? OPD 7. Whether notice under section 80 CPC was not served on the defendant, if so, to what effect ? OPD 7. The trial court decided issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the State and observed that the order passed by the Special Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner on 20.4.63, m 13.8.63 and 3.4.64 are legal and valid whereas other issues were decided in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court, the respondents-plaintiffs filed an appeal and the same was accepted. The main suit was decreed against the State of Punjab. Hence, this appeal. 8. I have heard Mr. S.S. Gill, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the contesting respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Narain Singh is otherwise the proforma respondent. The main suit was decreed against the State of Punjab. Hence, this appeal. 8. I have heard Mr. S.S. Gill, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the contesting respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Narain Singh is otherwise the proforma respondent. During the pendency of the appeal, Bakhshish Singh respondent No. 1 had died and his two Legal representatives namely Bachan Kaur and Joginder Singh were brought on record vide C.M. No. 44/C/84 as is clear from the memo of parties. Another application was also moved by learned counsel for the respondents bearing No. 4258-C of 2003 for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 2 namely Amrik Singh. The legal representatives of Amrik Singh are Satpal Singh, Gurlal Singh, Smt. Nasib Kaur, Smt. Kuldeep Kaur, Smt. Surinder Kaur and Smt. Kulwant Kaur. Although none has appeared to argue the above said Civil misc. application for bringing on record the legal representatives of Amrik Singh, yet I allowed the same separately vide my short order dated 25.4.2003 and the legal representatives as detailed in the application were brought on record. 9. Learned State counsel contended that the entry made in the roznamcha of the Patwari is of doubtful nature particularly when no mutation was sanctioned. 10. It was then contended that the gift made by Narain Singh father of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is hit by the provisions of Section 32 FF of the Act and as such the suit land has been rightly declared surplus. It is further contended that section 32 FF of the Act prohibited transfer of the agricultural land made after 21.8.1956 and as such the entries in the roznamcha qua the gift was ignored and the Collector Agrarian rightly declared the suit land as surplus leaving only 30 standard acres with Narain Singh. Learned State counsel then contended that Narain Singh had refused to accept the notice and as such no further notice was essential to be served upon his sons as they were not shown owners in the revenue record on 21.8.56. The learned counsel submits that any transfer made after 21.8.56 is not to be accepted at all as it would be detrimental to the rights of the State Government because the gift deed was executed on 8.10.56 and Narain Singh was at that time in possession of the suit land. The learned counsel submits that any transfer made after 21.8.56 is not to be accepted at all as it would be detrimental to the rights of the State Government because the gift deed was executed on 8.10.56 and Narain Singh was at that time in possession of the suit land. The State counsel then contends that orders of the Collector dated 20.4.63, Commissioner dated 13.8.63 and Financial Commissioner dated 3.4.64 deserve to be confirmed within the provisions of the Act. 11. As stated above, no assistance has been rendered on behalf of the respondents. I have gone through the judgments of both the courts below. The learned State counsel has also been heard at length. 12. Since the controversy revolves round issue No. 1 and 2 and finding was given against the respondents-plaintiffs by the trial court and the same has been reversed by the lower appellate court, I have once again made an endeavour to peruse the record. 13. The respondents (plaintiffs in the main suit) produced PW3 Sardara Singh Halqa patwari in whose handwriting the relevant entry was made in the roznamcha dated 31.8.52. He has deposed that the said entry was made by him at the instance of Narain Singh and it was signed by its maker besides one Jeon Singh who had attested the same. According to the said entry Narain Singh wanted to transfer 4/5 share of his entire land in the village to his sons (plaintiffs). It cannot be said by an stretch of imagination that the entry made in the roznamcha of the Patwari is not genuine. There is no reason to disbelieve the Patwari also in this regard. The entry was made in the original roznamcha by official concerned in the course of performance of his official duties and is admissible under section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned lower appellate court has entered into a detailed discussion in this regard and I have no reason to disagree with the same. Hence it is hardly open to the State to call its records as of doubtful character. 14. In the grounds of appeal, a plea has also been taken that the gift is hit by the provisions of Section 32 FF of the Act. The learned first appellate court has dealt with this plea in detail. There is no ground to disagree with that view. 15. 14. In the grounds of appeal, a plea has also been taken that the gift is hit by the provisions of Section 32 FF of the Act. The learned first appellate court has dealt with this plea in detail. There is no ground to disagree with that view. 15. So far as gift deed dated 8.10.1956 executed by Narain Singh is concerned, the reasoning given in para No. 11 of the judgment of lower appellate court is convincing in this behalf. Notice of the proceedings to the plaintiffs was the minimum requirement. Notice to Narain SIngh as urged by the State was an exercise in futility and is of no help to the State. The absence of notice works as acid in milk. The root is rotten in this case. The judgment of the lower appellate court is sound and faultless. It does not call for any interference. 16. No other point has been urged before me. Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.