SUDARSHAN NATH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, who are the legal representatives of the original landholder Raghubinder Nath and were unsuccessful before the High Court, have come up before this Court against the order dated 20-8-91 of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3062 of 1991, declining to interfere with the order dated 1-8-90 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals). Late Raghubinder Nath, who was said to be a big landowner, was governed by the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Land Tenures Act'). By a proceeding dated 30-6-60 in exercise of the powers of the Collector under Sections 3 and 4 of the Land Tenures Act, the ceiling area of the said landowner came to be determined and an extent of 3 Standard Acres and 91/4 Units were declared as surplus. On 31-3-76, the Collector Agrarian, Gurdaspur, after completion of the consolidation proceedings in the area, passed an order declaring that there is no area left surplus and ordered the case to be filed. While matter stood thus, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 2 and 3, Late Jagat Ram, to whom 20 kanal and 13 marlas were said to have been given on lease even prior to 1953, filed a suit for declaration that he, being a tenant, is eligible for the allotment of the surplus area measuring about 56 kanal and 4 marlas with a consequential direction to the Collector, Gurdaspur, to allot the surplus land to him. No doubt, to these proceedings the landowner was not impleaded as a party but only the State, represented by the Collector, was made a party. The said suit came to be decreed on 7-11-79, ex parte. When the said plaintiff filed the Execution Petition No. 5 of 1980, the learned Subordinate Judge adverted to the fact that the legal heirs of Raghubinder Nath have filed an appeal against the order of the Collector and inasmuch as the matter has been stayed, the vesting cannot take effect and the allotment order could not be issued at that stage. On that view, the execution proceedings were held to be premature and consequently dismissed on 1-11-81.

(2.) In the meanwhile, on 29-9-80 the Collector Agrarian, Gurdaspur, passed an order declaring 3 Standard Acres and 91/4 Units to be the surplus area. This order was challenged by the original landholder on an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, but the same came to be dismissed on 10-2-82. The challenge was further pursued before the Financial Commissioner by means of a Revision Petition. When the above proceedings were pending, the Collector, Gurdaspur, appears to have allotted the surplus land, as declared, to Late Jagat Ram on 24-3-82. Pursuant to the allotment so made, on 30-3-82 Jagat Ram was said to have deposited Rs. 5,900/-.

(3.) The revision filed by Raghubir Nath before the Financial Commissioner against the order passed by the Commissioner came to be disposed of on 10-3-83 with a direction that the landowner should be given an opportunity of selecting permissible area and the allottee be accommodated elsewhere on an equivalent land. In doing so, the revisional authority was of the view that the Revenue Officers are bound to give an opportunity to a landowner of being heard and selecting his permissible area under Section 24-A(2) of the Land Tenures Act, after consolidation proceedings, if the land declared surplus had not been utilised by them. It is interesting to notice that even the revisional authority did not approve of the bona fide nature of the transfers said to have been effected in 1954 and adversely commented upon the omission to produce copies of the Khasra girdawaris for the period subsequent to the execution Sale Deed dated 2-5-54. On 2-2-84, the original landowner Raghubinder Nath died and the mutation was said to have been sanctioned on 16-1-86 in favour of the appellants.