MUKHTIAR KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in which a prayer has been made that the orders of the Commissioner, dated October 31, 1967, and of the Financial Commissioner, dated January 9, 1968, be quashed and the petitioner be declared to be the absolute owner of the property in dispute.

(2.) The facts as given in the writ petition are that petitioners father-in-law Natha Singh, was the owner of the land in dispute who is alleged to have made a report to the Patwari that he had made a gift of the land in dispute to her and the same was written by the Patwari in his roznamcha at serial No. 13 on September 11, 1953 (a copy of the report has been produced as Annexure 'A' on the record). The possession of the property was given to the petitioner and since then she has been in continuous possession thereof through her husband. Natha Singh was a big landowner and proceedings against him for declaration of surplus area under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were started by the Collector (Agrarian) and the area in dispute was declared as surplus in his hands on May 29, 1963, vide Annexure 'B' to the petition. Natha Singh challenged that order in the Courts of the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner but he remained unsuccessful. Ultimately, the surplus area of Natha Singh was utilized under Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1960, in favour of the strangers. The petitioner came to know in 1966 that the land gifted to her by her father-in-law, Natha Singh, had been declared surplus in the hands of his father-in-law. Consequently, she made an application on August 5, 1966, before the Collector (Agrarian) praying that the land in dispute should be released in her favour as she was not a big landowner. The application was allowed by the Collector on April 18, 1967. An appeal was filed by respondent No. 4 and others against that order to the Commissioner, Patiala, who accepted the same on October 31, 1967, and set aside the order of the Collector. A revision against the order of the Commissioner by the petitioner was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on November 20, 1967. Having felt aggrieved against the said order, she has filed the present writ petition in this Court.

(3.) The State has not filed any return to the petition. Respondents 4 to 8 have, however, filed the return and have controverted the allegations. Their main contention is that the entry in the roznamcha was manipulated and ante-dated. The petitioner never came into possession of the land either herself or through her husband as no possession was delivered to her. The Khasra Girdawaris and the Jamabandis do not support her. In the Jamabandi for the year 1965-66, the land in dispute, has been shown to be in the name of Natha Singh and is also under his cultivation. The Collector had no power to review the orders of his predecessor under the Act.