LAJPAT RAI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment dated May 21, 1970 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana accepting a Letters Patent Appeal and holding that in view of the provisions of Sections 5, 5-A and 5-B of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the concerned Collector had no jurisdiction to vary the reserved area of a landowner by including therein the lands sold by him to others.

(2.) Most of the relevant facts are undisputed and may be briefly stated thus. Sadh Singh, respondent No. 3, who is a displaced person from Pakistan, was allotted more than 60 standard acres of land in village Karyam, Tehsil Nawanshehar, District Jullundar, in lieu of the land left by him in Pakistan. He also owned a little more than 1 standard acre of land in village Surwind, Tehsil Patti, District Amritsar. About 3 years after the Act came into force, i. e., on March 9, 1956, respondent No. 3 made an oral gift of some of his land in lieu of maintenance to his wife Nirmal Kaur, respondent No. 4, who entered into an agreement dated January 21, 1957 with the three appellants for sale to them of the land gifted to her, against a consideration of Rs. 4200/-. The land covered by the gift was mutated in favour of respondent No. 4 on April 17, 1957 and she conveyed the same to the three appellants by a registered sale deed dated August 8, 1957. The agreement mentioned above as well as the sale deed following it were attested by respondent No. 3 as a marginal witness.

(3.) The proceedings for declaration of the surplus area out of the land owned by respondent No. 3 were initiated by the Collector on June 20, 1958. They passed through various stages before the Collector and in appeal before the Commissioner. Ultimately the Special Collector, Punjab, declared the surplus area of respondent No. 3 after hearing him and the appellants, through an order dated March 30, 1962, and while doing so, he included the land sold to the appellants by respondent No. 4 in the "select area" of respondent No. 3, as prayed for by the appellants. The order was based on some rulings of the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, to the effect that all sales for valuable consideration effected by a landowner after the enforcement of the Act should be included in his "select area". Respondent No. 3 unsuccessfully challenged the order in an appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner as timebarred. The order of the Commissioner was upheld in revision by the Financial Commissioner. It was then that respondent No. 3 knocked at the door of the High Court through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was dismissed by a learned single Judge on the ground that the order of the Special Collector had become final by reason of the appeal taken against it being time-barred. The learned Judge observed that respondent No. 3 was not entitled to any relief in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under the said article in view of the fact that he had failed to pursue diligently the remedy of appeal which was open to him.