JAI LAL Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which is raised in this petition is both of interest and importance. The first petitioner Jai Lal was the owner in possession of 38 standard acres and 12-1/4 units in village Budha Khera Kalwa, Tehsil Jind in district Sangrur. He sold 23 standard acres and 2-1/4 units of this holding to one Mehar Chand son of Nanak, who is said to be a Jat of village Daulatpur in district Hissar, for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on 22nd of November, 1957. A few days later, the four sons of Jai Lal, who are petitioner Nos. 2 to 5, brought a suit for pre-emption and the defendant Mehar Chand having admitted the claim a decree was passed in favour of the sons by the Court of Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Jind, on 19th of December, 1957. Armed with this decree, the petitioners objected that no portion of the land comprised in the holding of the first petitioner could be declared as surplus, each of the sons of Jai Lal having acquired a separate title in the land not exceeding 30 standard acres.

(2.) The Collector, Agrarian Reforms, Jind, taking into account the fact that the entire land remained under the cultivation of the first petitioner reached the conclusion that the sale was in fact a fictitious transaction designed only to provide a sort of conduit pipe for the transference of the land in favour of his sons by Jai Lal deliberately with the object of over-reaching the provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In this view of the matter, an area of 8 standard acres and 12-1/4 units out of the holding of the first petitioner was declared as surplus. From this order of the Collector passed on 27th of June, 1961, an appeal was preferred to the Commissioner Patiala Division. Rejecting the contention that Jai Lal had sold the land to persons who were not his prescribed relatives and holding the view that this sale was in any event set aside at the instance of the sons of the petitioner, the transference of the land in substance was found by him to have been made in favour of the sons. The appeal was accordingly dismissed by the Commissioner on 6th of October, 1961, and the order of the Collector, Agrarian Reforms, affirmed.

(3.) Without first invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the Financial Commissioner under sub-section (3) of Section 39 of the Act, the petitioners have moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the validity of the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner on 27th of June and 6th of October, 1961, respectively.