RAGHBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners purchased land from respondent No. 5 Shri Mohan Ram and in respect thereof. The sale deed dated 27.1.1976 was executed defining the area of the land as 44K-10 Marlas comprised in Rectangle No. 104 Killa Nos. 4(6-14), 5(7-2), 6(8-0), 7(7-12), Rectangle No. 105 Killa Nos. 1(7-2), 10(8-0), Khewat No. 116 as per Jamabandi 1970-71 in favour of the petitioners in equal shares for a consideration of Rs. 22000/- (Twenty two thousand rupees). The sale deed was registered specifically/stating that the land sold was free from all kind of encumbrances and that if any misstatement on the part of the vendors would cause any loss or suffering to the vendees, the vendors himself personally and his property of all kinds would be liable. The mutation bearing No. 1031 was duty sanctioned by the competent authorities in favour on the petitioners. It was further assured that the land sold in question was included in the permissible area of the vendor and his family and that no part thereof had fallen of would fall in surplus poor to be determined in accordance with provisions of law. The land in question was described as self cultivated land by respondent No. 5 which fact stood corroborated from Jamabandi for the year 1970-71. The mutation sanctioned was duly reflected in the Jamabandi for the year 1975-76.

(2.) Respondent No. 5 had furnished declaration by way of filling Form 'A' as required under Section 5 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the act) within the period prescribed by Rule 5(2) of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the rules). By way of filling the aforesaid form, the permissible area was duly, selected by respondent No. 5 and that necessary orders were required to be passed thereon by the Collector. A copy of the aforesaid declaration form has been annexed as Annexure P-1. As per the aforesaid form, 509 Kanals 18 Marlas were shown as the ownership of respondent No. 5 and out of which land measuring 125 Kanals, as per the detail given in column No. 6 of the Form, was shown to be under tenancy of one Ram Partap son of Shera Ram. It has been disclosed that since Kharit 1964, the aforesaid land was under the tenancy of the aforesaid person. Another piece of land measuring 63 kanals 12 Marlas was shown under the tenancy of Hanuman son of Kalu Ram since Kharif 1963. The remaining area was projected to be under self-cultivation of respondent No. 5 and was selected as permissible area for himself and his family members. The aforesaid declaration given in the requisite form has been duly supported by an affidavit.

(3.) The total land holding or respondent No. 5 after converting into first quality land was taken as 14.04 Hectares by respondent No. 4 i.e., the Collector. The respondent No. 4 passed an order dated 20.5.1976 (copy Annexure P-2) vide which an area measuring 2.84 Hectares has been declared surplus in the hands of respondent No. 5. The petitioners had not been given any notice or any opportunity of being heard despite the fact that they have been duly entered as owners of the land purchased by them from respondent No. 5, as the mutation in respect thereof has been duty sanctioned and the entry in this regard had been reflected in the revenue records. Admittedly, the sale deed was executed and registered prior to the passing of the order by the Collector. However, in pursuant to an order dated 20.5.1976 passed by the Collector, respondent No. 5 furnished details of the land to be placed in surplus pool and the same stood described vide Annexure 'A' filed before the Collector. In pursuant thereto, respondent No. 5 was directed to deliver possession of such land to the Circle Revenue Officer within a specified period.