Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 110 (PNJ)

Tarlok Singh v. F. C. (Revenue)

2009-01-15

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, NIRMALJIT KAUR

body2009
Judgment Nirmaljit Kaur, J. 1. Bahadur Singh son of Hakam Singh, resident of Village Gharinda, Tehsil Tarn Taran, District Amritsar (now Tarn Taran) was a big land owner. Being a big land owner, his land holding to the extent of area 42 standard acres-3/4 units was declared surplus by the then Collector, Agrarian Amritsar-II, vide his order dated 02.11.1960 (Annexure P-1). Bahadur Singh died on 30.05.1986. He was survived by his legal heirs, namely, Amarjit Singh son of Bahadur Singh, Jasbir Singh, Gurjinder Singh, and Gurmej Singh (stated to be wrongly mentioned as Gurmit Singh in the impugned order) sons of Amarjit Singh son of Bahadur Singh, Gurpartap Singh, Harparkash Singh, Gurdev singh sons of Gurmej Singh son of Bahadur Singh and Amir Kaur widow of Gurmej Singh son of Bahadur Singh (respondents No. 4 to 11). Out of his legal heirs, Gurpartap Singh and Gurmeet Singh had filed an application before the SDM-cum-Collector, for determination of the area. The Collector, Amritsar sought report from the Agrarian Branch and after recording the statement etc., found that out of the surplus area measuring 42 standard acres 3/4 units, 4.66 hectare area, still remained un-utilized and also found that the legal heirs of Bahadur Singh, did not have any surplus area. On the basis of the aforesaid conclusion and the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court and Full Bench of this Court rendered in the case of "State of Punjab v Ranjit Ram", the Collector, Agrarian, Amritsar ordered that 4.66 hectares out of 42 standard acres, which remained un-utilized, be maintained in the name of the legal heirs of Bahadur Singh vide order dated 19.10.2001 (Annexure P-4). Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner challenged the same before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar by way of appeal, mainly on the following grounds :- 1. After the enactment of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953, land measuring 42 S.A. unit held by Bahadur Singh was declared as surplus and the present Appellant, Pritam Singh and Jarnail Singh are in cultivating possession of land measuring 204 kanals 13 marlas since 1964 out of the said land having been declared as surplus; 2. That the respondents were bent upon depriving the appellant from the said land and as such, application under Form-L was filed by the respondents alleging the non payment of lease money. That the respondents were bent upon depriving the appellant from the said land and as such, application under Form-L was filed by the respondents alleging the non payment of lease money. The said application was dismissed and appellant, as also 2 other Tenants were allowed to purchase the land in suit under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act 1953 vide order dated 22.03.1972 passed by Shri Pritam Singh Bedi, Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Tarn Taran. However, the matter had gone to the Honble Supreme Court and vide order dated 08.03.1995, passed by Honble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, N. Venkatachala and S. Saghir Ahmad, the order of ejectment was set aside and the appellant and two others were allowed to continue to remain in possession as Tenants in the land in dispute. Accordingly, the appellants and others deposited the price fixed by the competent authority; and 3. That no notice whatsoever of any such proceedings initiated by the Collector was issued or served upon the Appellant. Thus, the said proceedings have been taken behind the back of the appellant. Thus, an ex parte order has been passed. Consequently, the order, under appeal is void ab initio. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar vide order dated 20.01.2004 (Annexure P-7). Thereafter, the petitioner preferred revision petition almost on the similar grounds as the appeal before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, which was also dismissed vide order dated 12.03.2008 (Annexure P-9). The present writ petition has, therefore, been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the orders dated 09.10.2001, 20.01.2004 and 12.03.2008, respectively, vide which, the revenue authorities re-determined the surplus area of the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 4 to 11. 2. The first argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the aforesaid orders is that no notice was ever issued to the petitioner while re-determining the surplus area even though the same had already been determined vide order dated 02.11.1960 (Anenxure P-1). 3. We do not agree with the aforesaid argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner, along with two others, was in possession of the land as tenant. They were allowed to remain in possession as tenants by the Honble Supreme Court, vide judgment (Annexure P-2). 3. We do not agree with the aforesaid argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner, along with two others, was in possession of the land as tenant. They were allowed to remain in possession as tenants by the Honble Supreme Court, vide judgment (Annexure P-2). However, after the decision rendered by the Honble the Supreme Court, the application filed by the petitioner along with two others under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred as 1953 Act) for purchase of the land in dispute, was revived and the land to the extent of two hectare (5 acres) (39 kanals 11 marlas) each was allotted to the three persons, including the present petitioner and the remaining land vested with the State Government vide order dated 30.10.1996 (Annexure P-3). Thus, after the passing of the order dated 30.10.1996, the petitioner had no right in the part of the land, which vested with the State Government after the allotment of 2 hectare land (5 acres) (39 kanals 11 marlas) to the petitioner out of the surplus area of 42 standard acres of the deceased Bahadur Singh. The petitioner accepted the order. It stood implemented. It was never challenged. The petitioner was satisfied with the same, as he was a beneficiary of this order to the extent of allotment of 2 hectares of land. Thus, he cannot grudge the transfer of the balance land to the legal heirs of the original owner. The petitioner was allotted quality land measuring 2 hectare (39 kanals 11 marlas) under Section 11(2) of the Land Reforms Act, 1972. Thus, the petitioner had no right on the remaining land which stood vested with the State Government. Since the petitioner had no right on the land, there was no requirement to hear him. He was not a necessary party. Thus, no fault can be found with the order passed by the Collector on this ground, vide which, it was ordered that after the allotment of the land to the tenant i.e. the petitioner, the remaining land 4.66 hectares shall remain in the names of the legal heirs of Bahadur Singh. 4. He was not a necessary party. Thus, no fault can be found with the order passed by the Collector on this ground, vide which, it was ordered that after the allotment of the land to the tenant i.e. the petitioner, the remaining land 4.66 hectares shall remain in the names of the legal heirs of Bahadur Singh. 4. The second argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is in cultivating possession of land measuring 204 kanals 13 marlas since 1964 as tenant and this area is Tenant Permissible Area under the law. Thus, the areas once declared surplus cannot be reverted back to the legal heirs of the deceased land owner. 5. The petitioner is stopped from raising this argument in view of our observations recorded while dealing with the first argument. He has no locus standi to challenge the order of redetermination on account of the fact that his own right stands determined on allotment of 2 hectare land (39 kanals 11 marlas) out of the surplus land, vide order dated 30.10.1996, which has become final. Hence, his right on the remaining land automatically stands relinquished. Even on merits, it has been judicially held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of `Sardara Singh v. Financial Commissioner, 2008(2) RCR(Civil) 744 : 2008(2) Law Herald 961 (P&H)(FB), that the death of the landowner would certainly cause affectation to the surplus area, which would be required to be redetermined in the hands of his heirs. Paragraphs 43 and 44 of the said judgment, interpreting Section 11(5) and 11(7) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, are reproduced hereunder :- "43. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in order to harmoniously read the two views in Ajit Kaurs case and to give correct interpretation of the provision of Section 11(5) and 11(7) of this Act, we ought to take the aid of Supreme Courts judgment in Ajmer Kaurs case. We hold that until the surplus area has been finally determined by the Collector and appeals/revisions have been dismissed, the death of the landowner would certainly cause affectation to the surplus area which would be required to be redetermined in the hands of his heirs. 44. We hold that until the surplus area has been finally determined by the Collector and appeals/revisions have been dismissed, the death of the landowner would certainly cause affectation to the surplus area which would be required to be redetermined in the hands of his heirs. 44. Resultantly, where the surplus area has been finally determined, and the matter is pending in appeals or revisions before the Revenue Courts or before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, or before the Supreme Court of India, death of the landowner would cause affectation of surplus area which would be required to be redertermined in the hands of the heirs of the deceased landowner. Such an interpretation would harmoniously construct the provisions of Section 11(5) and 11(7) and also give a proper interpretation to both the view expressed in Ajit Kaurs case. However, we are unable to uphold the judgments of this Court in Jasbir Kaurs case because Ajit Kaurs case was not at all considered by the Honble Division Bench. As regards Manjit Kaurs case, even though Ajit Kaurs case was considered, the majority view had been entirely overlooked." 6. It is clear from the order of the Apex Court, put on record by the petitioner as Annexure P-2, that the respondents herein legal heirs of the deceased Bahadur Singh, were still agitating their rights before the authorities under the 1953 Act and the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. Thus, the death of the big landowner entitles his heirs to request for redetermination of the land, which was declared surplus. 7. The third argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner and the two other persons were allowed to continue to remain in possession of the land in dispute as tenant by the Honble Supreme Court. Therefore, the petitioners right was protected. This argument of the petitioner is totally misconceived. In fact, after the decision rendered by the Honble Supreme Court, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the 1953 Act was revived and in compliance of the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, 1972, the land measuring 2 hectare (5 acres) was allotted to the petitioner along with two other persons, as per Section 11(2) of the Act, vide order dated 30.10.1996. The remaining land was ordered to be transferred in the name of the State Government. This order has attained finality. The remaining land was ordered to be transferred in the name of the State Government. This order has attained finality. He did not challenge it as he is a beneficiary of the allotment. Therefore, he cannot now grudge the transfer of the balance land to the legal heirs of original land owner (Bahadur Singh), who have been declared as small land owners. This issue was never before the Honble Supreme Court. The operative part of the order passed by the Honble Supreme Court is being extracted hereunder :- "Mr. Mahajan, learned Senior Advocate, states that his clients are still contesting before the authorities unde the Act and under the Reforms Act, the declaration of the land in dispute as Surplus. Be that as it may, in case the land owners succeeds in any of those proceedings, it would be open to them to take recourse of any provisions of lay which will be available and permissible to them to meet the situation as would arise at the given time. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion either way on the law point decided by the Full Bench of the High Court. The appeal is allowed to the above extent." A perusal of the above would shows that the respondents (legal heirs of the deceased Bahadur Singh) were granted the right to take recourse to any of the provisions of the law, which would be available and permissible to them to meet the situation. The land in dispute was, therefore, redetermined in accordance with the provisions of law. Thus, there is no merit in this argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner. 8. The fourth argument raised by the petitioner is that he is protected under the provision of Section 10-A of the 1953 Act, for resettlement of the ejected tenants. The relevant provisions of Section 10- A of the 1953 Act is being reproduced hereunder :- 10-A. Surplus Area for resettlement of ejectedly Tenants :- "(a) The State Government or any officer empowered by it in this behalf, shall be competent to utilize any Surplus Area for the resettlement of Tenants ejected, or to be ejected, under clause (1) of sub-section (1) of Section 9....." 9. We do not agree with the argument of the learned counsel. No such argument was raised either before the Commissioner in appeal or before the Financial Commissioner in revision. We do not agree with the argument of the learned counsel. No such argument was raised either before the Commissioner in appeal or before the Financial Commissioner in revision. In any case, the above provision does no help to the petitioner as he is not an ejected tenant. In fact, the petitioner is now owner of 2 hectare of land by virtue of the order dated 30.10.1996. The said order has attained the finality. The petitioners claim on the remaining land beyond two hectare is, therefore, misconceived. 10. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the orders dated 19.10.2001 (Annexure P-4), 20.01.2004 (Annexure P7) and 12.03.2008 passed by the Collector, Agrarian Amritsar-II, Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab, respectively. 11. From the pleadings of the case, it is clear that the present litigation is a totally frivolous one. The petitioner had already been allotted land to the extent of 2 hectare (39 Kanals 11 Marlas) out of the surplus land vide order dated 30.10.1996. The petitioner accepted the order as final. Since the petitioner satisfied with the aforesaid allotment to himself, he has no right on the remaining land. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed with Rs. 10,000/- as costs. The aforesaid costs shall be deposited with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, within two weeks and receipt thereof shall be placed on the file of this case.