Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2247 (PNJ)

Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab

2016-08-24

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

body2016
JUDGMENT : Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.7.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab-respondent no.2, whereby claim of the petitioners, being vendees of original big land-owners was declined to be protected, as the petitioners were not found bonafide purchasers, because they purchased the land much after it had already been declared surplus in the hands of their vendors. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. Placing reliance on three judgments of this court in Hanuman Vs. Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab, 1997 (1) RCR (Civil) 496, Surinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab through Secretary to Govt., Revenue Deptt., Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2004 (2) RCR (Civil) 724 and Paramjit Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2015 (7) RCR (Civil) 706, besides placing reliance on Full Bench judgment of this court in Sardara Singh and others Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 744, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners were vendees of Gurmeet Singh, who purchased the land from original land owner Pritpal Singh and possession from them was not taken, their rights would be protected because they were small land owners. Had the surplus area case been re-determined in the hands of the petitioners, there would be no surplus land in their hands. He further submits that since the Financial Commissioner has failed to consider each and every material aspect of the matter, while passing the impugned order, the same is liable to be set aside. In this regard, he also places reliance on another judgment of this court in Kuldip Singh (through LRs) and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 672. He prays for setting aside the impugned order, by allowing the present writ petition. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this court is of the considered opinion that since the impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, has not been found suffering from any patent illegality or perversity and the same deserves to be upheld. The writ petition is without any merit, which is liable to be dismissed, for the following more than one reasons. 5. The writ petition is without any merit, which is liable to be dismissed, for the following more than one reasons. 5. It is a matter of record that Pritpal Singh was original land owner. Proceedings for declaring the surplus area in his hands were initiated, which culminated in the order dated 8.11.1962, whereby land was declared surplus in the hands of original big land owner namely; Pritpal Singh. It is also not in dispute that original land owner Pritpal Singh never filed any appeal against the above said order dated 8.11.1962, which attained finality against him. Thereafter, Pritpal Singh-original big land owner sold land measuring 624 kanals out of the revenue estate of Village Harchandpura, vide sale deed dated 10.8.1970, to more than one persons namely; Major Singh, Gurmit Singh, Lachhman Singh and Gurmail Singh sons of Hazara Singh and Nand Kaur wife of Hazara Singh. 6. Abovesaid Gurmit Singh, who purchased the land out of surplus area, from original big land owner namely; Pritpal Singh, vide sale deed dated 10.8.1970, further sold the land in favour of present petitioners no.1 to 3 namely; Virsa Singh S/o Gian Singh, Malkiat Singh s/o Mukhtiar Singh and Gurdeep Singh s/o Charan Singh, through a registered sale deed in the year 1970 itself. Petitioners could not place any material on record, so as to show that they were bonafide purchasers from Gurmit Singh. In fact, this claim of the petitioners that they were bonafide purchasers, came to be rejected by the Financial Commissioner, vide his order dated 2.11.1993. 7. So far as petitioners no.4 and 5, who are sons of original big land owner namely; Pritpal Singh are concerned, they have failed to establish on record, at any point of time, during this litigation that at the time of death of original big land owner-Pritpal Singh, some proceedings either in the form of appeal or revision, were pending before either any revenue authority or in any court of law. There was a strong reason because of which petitioners no.4 and 5 could not establish this fact. The reason was that original order dated 8.11.1962, declaring the land surplus in the hands of Pritpal Singh-original big land owner, had attained finality during the life time of Pritpal Singh himself. There was a strong reason because of which petitioners no.4 and 5 could not establish this fact. The reason was that original order dated 8.11.1962, declaring the land surplus in the hands of Pritpal Singh-original big land owner, had attained finality during the life time of Pritpal Singh himself. In view of the above said undisputed fact situation obtaining on the record, none of the above said judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, is of any help to them, all the cited judgments being distinguishable on facts. 8. There were more than one clear distinguishing features. Firstly, Pritpal Singh-original big land owner never challenged the order dated 8.11.1962, whereby the land was declared surplus in his hands. On the other hand, after about 8 years, he sold the land measuring 624 kanals in favour of above said persons and one of them namely Gurmit Singh further sold in favour of present petitioners no.1 to 3. The second distinguishing feature is that petitioners no.1 to 3, who claim themselves to be vendees of Gurmit Singh, who in turn, was vendee of original big land owner Pritpal Singh, could not prove themselves to be bonafide purchasers, at any relevant point of time. Having said that, this court feels no hesitation to conclude that none of the cited judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, is of any help to the petitioners. 9. It is the settled proposition of law that peculiar facts and circumstances of each case are to be examined, considered and appreciated first, before applying any codified or judge made law thereto. Each case is to be decided as per its own peculiar fact situation. Some times, difference of even one additional fact or circumstance can make the world of difference, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padmausundra Rao and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2002 (3) SCC 533 . 10. A bare reading of the impugned order dated 22.7.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, would show that each and every relevant aspect of the matter was carefully dealt with, properly considered and rightly appreciated in the correct perspective. It is also pertinent to note here that the order dated 4.10.1978 (Annexure P-2-A) was passed by the Collector as a supplementary order to the original order dated 8.11.1962. It is also pertinent to note here that the order dated 4.10.1978 (Annexure P-2-A) was passed by the Collector as a supplementary order to the original order dated 8.11.1962. However, so far as the claim of the petitioners is concerned, this supplementary order would be of no consequence, because by said order their claim would not get revived, as the original order dated 8.11.1962 had already attained finality against the original big land owner- Pritpal Singh. 11. The relevant observations made by the Financial Commissioner in the operative part of the impugned order, which deserves to be noticed here, read as under :- “It is admitted fact that the land of Pritpal Singh original land owner was declared surplus vide order 8.11.1962 and no appeal was filed against this order and it attained finality. It is also not disputed that Pritpal Singh the original land owner sold land measuring 624 kanals in Village Harchandpura vide sale deed dated 10.8.1970 to Major Singh, Gurmit Singh, Lachhman Singh, Gurmail Singh sons of Hazara Singh and Nand Kaur wife of Hazara Singh. The private respondents in the present revision petitions purchased the land from Gurmit Singh who purchased the land from Pritpal Singh through sale deed in the year 1970. The Financial Commissioner Revenue vide order dated 2.11.1993 has given detailed findings on the issues raised in the present petitions and rejected the plea of bonafide vendees. In 1981 PLJ 316 it has been held that no equity can be shown in favour of the vendees who have purchased the land from big land owner, which had been declared surplus. The private respondents are the vendees from Gurmit Singh etc. and thus could not claim better title than the persons who sold the land to them. The subsequent vendees i.e. Respondents, can step in to the shoes of their seller. In the present case the right of the sellers of present respondents was rejected earlier by Financial Commissioner Revenue, therefore, the present respondents cannot have a claim better than their sellers. The surplus case was decided under the Special Act i.e. Pepsu Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, whereby under Section 32(ff) sale by land owner to dismish the area was barred, therefore, the private respondents are not entitled to claim the benefit of bonafide transferee under Section 41 of Transfer of Property Act, which is a general Act. The surplus case was decided under the Special Act i.e. Pepsu Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, whereby under Section 32(ff) sale by land owner to dismish the area was barred, therefore, the private respondents are not entitled to claim the benefit of bonafide transferee under Section 41 of Transfer of Property Act, which is a general Act. The provisions of general Act do not apply when such provision override the provisions of special Act as held by Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Smt. Naranjan Kaur Vs. Financial Commissioner Revenue Punjab cited as (1011-1) PLR 110 referred by the State counsel. Thus, the argument of bonafide transferees advanced by the counsel for private respondents is not sustainable and issue is decided against the private respondents. Issue no.2 regarding Section 11 of Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, it may pointed out that this issue was also earlier decided by the Financial Commissioner Revenue in the order dated 2.11.1993 and it was held that the legal heirs of big land owner are not in picture. The vendees cannot claim the benefit of Section 11 of Act, 1972 ibid. The legal heirs were not even impleaded as party before the Financial Commissioner Revenue or lower authorities. The big land owner had sold entire land during his life time and possession thereof was passed on to the vendees and not to his legal heirs. Even after death of original land owner, the possession of the land, remained with the first vendees i.e. Major Singh etc. and had not reverted to the legal heirs. The present respondents therefore are not entitled to any benefit under Section 11 since the case of their sellers was rejected by the earlier decision of Financial Commissioner Revenue as discussed above. The points which were adjudicated earlier in the order dated 2.11.1993 passed by the Financial Commissioner Revenue cannot be agitated again by the subsequent vendees keeping in view the principle of res-judicata. Issue no. (iii) relates to the locus standi of Darshan Singh, Ranbir Singh, Paramjit Singh etc., to file the present revision petitions. The points which were adjudicated earlier in the order dated 2.11.1993 passed by the Financial Commissioner Revenue cannot be agitated again by the subsequent vendees keeping in view the principle of res-judicata. Issue no. (iii) relates to the locus standi of Darshan Singh, Ranbir Singh, Paramjit Singh etc., to file the present revision petitions. Section 84 of Punjab Tenancy Act read with Section 18 of Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 provides that the Financial Commissioner is empowered to call for the record of any case disposed of or pending before any subordinate revenue authorities or revenue officer and decide the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. In the present case also even if it is assumed that the petitioners have no right, title or interest in the land in dispute, still the Financial Commissioner Appeal can take cognizance of the revision petitions filed before him even by a whistle-blower, when any illegality has occurred in the order of the subordinate revenue officer. Thus, this court is competent to decide the revision petitions. The impugned order of the Commissioner suffers from basic flaws and the order has been passed without discussing the merits of the case and the previous order dated 2.11.1993 passed by Financial Commissioner Revenue. The order of the Commissioner is not based on merits or record. The notices under Section 9(1) of Act, 1972 ibid, are valid which were issued by the Collector in consequence of the surplus proceedings. I find that there is merit in the legal points raised in revision petitions and the written argument submitted by counsel for the State. In such circumstances, I accept the revision petitions and set aside the impugned order dated 15.6.2005 passed by Commissioner Patiala Division Patiala. The order dated 6.8.2004 passed by Collector, Samana relating to issue of notice under Section 9(1) of Act, 1972 ibid, are upheld and the Collector is directed to take further action in view of orders dated 8.11.1962 and 4.10.1978 by taking over the possession from unauthorised occupants of surplus land.” 12. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any patent illegality or perversity in the above said impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner. However, he has tried to raise another argument that since possession remained with the petitioners, they were entitled for re-determination of surplus area case in their hands. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any patent illegality or perversity in the above said impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner. However, he has tried to raise another argument that since possession remained with the petitioners, they were entitled for re-determination of surplus area case in their hands. However, this has not been found to be the ratio of Full Bench judgment of Sardara Singh's case (supra). 13. The ratio of law laid down by the Full Bench in Sardara Singh's case (supra), is in para 42 of the judgment and the same reads as under :- “Resultantly, where the surplus area has not 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 affection of surplus area which would be required to be re-determined 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 views expressed in Ajit Kaur's case. However, we are unable to uphold the judgments of this court in Jasbirt Kaur's case because Ajit Kaur's case was not at all considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench. As regards Manjit Kaur's case, even though Ajit Kaur's case was considered, the majority view had been entirely overlooked.” 14. No other argument was raised. 15. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab has been found having been passed on the basis of true facts of the case and also in accordance with law, which deserves to be upheld. 16. No prejudice of any kind, whatsoever, has been shown to have been caused to the petitioners, by passing the impugned order. The writ petition is wholly misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out. 17. Resultantly, with the above said observations made, the present writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.