NASIB SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lal Chand (deceased) was a big landowner. Out of his total holdings, 13.71 standard acres of land in village Mahmoodpur Rurkee was declared surplus by the Collector Agrarian by his order dated November 25, 1961, and 30 standard acres was allowed as his permissible area. Thereafter Special Collector of Patiala by his order dated January 6, 1962, modified the said order and held that the land-owner was entitled to retain only 80 ordinary acres instead of 30 standard acres. This order was challenged by the petitioners before the Commissioner who by his order dated June 4, 1968 (Annexure P.1) set aside the order of the Special Collector and directed that the surplus area in the hands of the land-owner be declared afresh. Nothing happened for considerable time and it was only on July 30, 1973, that the Collector Agrarian, Patiala, passed order (Annexure P.2) declaring 13.53 standard acres as a surplus in the hands of Lal Chand land-owner. It was also directed that the draft statement in respect of the same be published. It is not disputed that at the time when this order was passed, the petitioners who were transferees from the original landowner were not issued any notice nor were they associated with the surplus area proceedings. The petitioners on coming to know of the declaration of surplus area filed objections before the Collector Agrarian, Patiala (Annexure P.3) on November 13, 1975 with a prayer that they were entitled to be heard as transferees before declaration of surplus area and that without providing any opportunity to them, they should not be deprived of the possession of the land. The Collector Agrarian agreed with the contention of the petitioners and by his order dated May 6, 1976 (Annexure P.4) made a reference to the Commissioner for permission to reconsider the order regarding surplus area after providing opportunity of hearing of the petitioners. However, the Commissioner did not agree with the recommendation of the Collector and declined the reference by his order dated January 27, 1978 (Annexure P.5). It is this order of the Commissioner (Annexure P.5) and that of the Collector Agrarian (Annexure P.2) by which the land has been declared surplus which have been challenged in the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The Government in their reply have admitted that the petitioners were transferees and did approach the Commissioner. It is also not disputed that the transferees-petitioners had not been served with any notice nor had they been heard at the time of declaration of surplus area by the Collector vide his order (Annexure P.2). In such a situation, the writ petition has to be allowed.

(2.) According to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Harnek Singh and another v. The State of Punjab and others, 1971 PunLJ 727, the transferees in whose favour the land of a big land-owner is alienated after 1956 are entitled to be heard at the time of declaration of surplus area. This decision squarely covers the case of the petitioners. According to the learned State counsel the petitioners filed objections (Annexure P.3) in reply to the notice under Section 9 of the Land Reforms Act which was issued to them for the purpose of taking possession of the surplus area. It is urged that in reply to such a notice the petitioners were not entitled to challenge the order pertaining to the surplus area. This contention has no merit. It is admitted that the petitioners were the transferees of land when the impugned order (Annexure P.2) was passed in 1973 by which surplus area was declared. As such they were entitled to notice and the order without notice to them, who were interested parties, cannot be sustained. In fact when the objections were filed by the petitioners, the only course to be adopted by the Collector was to hear the petitioners and decide the case de novo and it was not necessary to make any recommendation to the Commissioner for permission to review his order. The Commissioner also rejected the recommendation of the Collector on erroneous conception of law. Even if he was of the opinion that there was no provision for review under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, the ex parte order could be quashed, and the interested parties heard, because in such situation strictly speaking, it is not a case of review.

(3.) The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioners through their counsel are directed to appear before the Collector Agrarian, respondent No. 3 on June 27, 1980, who, after hearing the petitioners and the landowners will pass a fresh order regarding declaration of surplus area in accordance with law. Petition accepted.