ABNASH RANI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment dated 15th February, 2006, passed by a Single Judge of this Court, the Appellant Abnash Rani has preferred the instant appeal.

(2.) Brief factual background of the case as requires to be noticed at the outset, is that a case pertaining to Anant Ram and Swaran Singh both sons of Nathu Ram was decided by the Collector by order dated May 31, 1960. An area measuring 86 standard acres and 10-1/4 units was declared surplus in the hands of land owners in village Mandiala and some other villages. Aggrieved by the said order, daughters and widow of Swaran Dass, one of the land owners, filed an appeal before Commissioner, Jalandhar Division. The appeal was accepted by the Commissioner on the ground that in view of Rule 4(b)(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1959, only Collector was competent to decide the case. The Commissioner, thus, quashed the said order and remanded the case to Collector for decision afresh vide his order dated 17th April, 1961. One of the land owners, namely Swaran Dass died on 27th October, 1960 leaving behind his legal heirs. It was, thus, contended before the Collector that after death of Swaran Singh, his legal heirs had been rendered small land owners and thus, there was No. surplus area in their hands. This plea on behalf of Swaran Dass was accepted. However, position as regards Anant Ram remained unchanged. The Collector, thus, decided that one half of the surplus area falling to the share of Anant Ram would continue as surplus as before and would be utilized in accordance with the Rules. This order was passed by the Collector on 10th October, 1961. The order passed by the Collector was challenged by Abnash Rani (Appellant herein) raising the issue that the area, which was Banjar Qadim, had been wrongly taken into account by the Collector while deciding the issue of surplus area. She claimed that she had purchased a part of the surplus area from Anant Ram by virtue of sale-deed dated March 21, 1973 and thus, she was entitled to raise this plea. She also took a stand that being a transferee from Anant Ram, she was entitled to exemption from surplus area. Another appeal was preferred by Smt. Agyawati and Ors. taking the same plea that Banjar land had been included in the holding of Anant Ram while assessing the surplus area. It was also contended that after death of Anant Ram, his legal heirs had become small land owners and thus, No. surplus area could be assessed in then-hand. Both the appeals were heard by the Commissioner and were dismissed. Revision was also preferred before the Financial Commissioner but fate remained the same. Aggrieved, the Appellant preferred a writ petition, which was decided by a Single Bench of this Court on 15th February, 2006 and the plea of the Petitioner (Appellant herein) was turned down. The said order has been impugned in the instant appeal.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant has assailed the impugned order by contending that Anant Ram was similarly placed as Swaran Dass. His land having been exempted from the surplus proceedings, Anant Ram was entitled to same concession. According to him, the Appellant is a bona fide purchaser of land from Anant Ram vide registered sale deed dated 21st March, 1973. The said land being Banjar Qadim, could not have been declared surplus. Learned Counsel further contended that the land could not be declared surplus without making a declaration in accordance with law. Besides, the land remains unutilized till date and thus mere passing of the order declaring it as surplus will not be sufficient. He submits that in case the land remains unutilized, the same cannot be said to have vested in the State Government. This apart, according to him, there is nothing to show that Form 'F' was ever supplied thereby depriving the land owner to know which portion of the land had been declared surplus. In view of same, entire proceedings are vitiated.