HARTEJ BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Hartej Bahadur Singh is the owner of a considerable area of land in Village Kahangarh, Tehsil and District Sangrur. Consolidation proceedings in that village started in the year 1954 and repartition in pursuance of the scheme of consolidation was effected in the year 1958. Prior to the repartition the land belonging to the petitioner was being cultivated by various tenants, one of them being Tek Singh (respondent No. 5). On repartition, as a result of the consolidation proceedings, the possession of the new area allotted to the petitioner in lieu of his old holding was delivered to the petitioner to the exclusion of Tek Singh respondent and some other tenants. Thereupon Tek Singh and his brother Karam Singh, who also claimed to be a tenant, made an application under Section 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to the Collector, Sangrur, praying that they be put back in possession as they had been forcibly dispossessed by the petitioner and others before the repartition proceedings started. The Collector, Sangrur, however, dismissed this application by his order dated the 10th April, 1961, being of the opinion that if the tenant felt aggrieved by the non-delivery of possession as a result of consolidation proceedings, his remedy was to approach the consolidation authorities and the application under Section 43 of Act was not competent. This decision was, however, set aside in appeal by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, who held that the Collector had the jurisdiction to grant the relief asked for under Section 43 of the Act, and, accordingly, he remanded the case to the Collector for decision in accordance with law. When the case went back to the Collector, an objection was taken that no relief could be granted to Tek Singh as neither the application nor the Vakalatnama of his counsel bore his signatures. Accordingly, the Collector did not entertain the claim of Tek Singh but accepted the application of his brother Karam Singh.

(2.) Tek Singh thereupon made a fresh application under Section 43 of the Act reiterating his plea that he had been wrongly and forcibly dispossessed by the landlord and praying for restoration of possession of the land of which he was the tenant. In resisting the tenant's claim it was pleaded by the landlord that Tek Singh had voluntarily relinquished his tenancy and he was thus not entitled to reclaim it after the consolidation proceedings. This plea was, however, rejected by the Collector and on the basis of the khasra girdawaris and other material placed before him by the parties he held that Tek Singh had remained in cultivating possession of his land in dispute till Rabi 1958 and, thereafter, he was forcibly dispossessed by the petitioner. Accordingly, he accepted Tek Singh's application under Section 43 of the Act and directed that he be put back in possession. This order was upheld in appeal by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, on the 23rd March, 1964, vide his order which forms Annexure 'C' to the petition. Hartej Bahadur Singh went up in revision but the same was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner (Planning) on the 4th July, 1964, vide his order Annexure 'D' to the petition. Feeling still aggrieved, Hartej Bahadur Singh' has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution assailing the validity of the orders passed against him by the various Revenue Authorities under Section 43 of the Act in favour of Tek Singh respondent and praying for issue of a writ quashing the same.

(3.) The sole contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the Collector had no authority to order restoration of possession of the land to the tenant Tek Singh (respondent No. 5) and The only remedy which was available to him was to proceed under East Punjab Holdings Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, if he felt aggrieved by the non-delivery of the land which was allotted in lieu of the land held by him as a tenant. In this connection reliance is placed upon a decision of a, Division Bench of the Court in Hartej Bahadur Singh v. The State of Punjab and others, 1964 66 PunLR 751 That case also arose out of a similar application made under Section 43 of the Act by Sucha Singh, another tenant of the petitioner. This authority has been duly considered by the learned Financial Commissioner and I am, in complete agreement with him that it, is clearly distinguishable. The rule laid down in that case was that if the consolidation authorities fail to put the tenant in possession and instead possession is given to the landowner, the possession of the land-owner cannot be said to be wrongful or unauthorised within the meaning of Section 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and the mistake committed by the Consolidation Officer can be got corrected by proceedings under the Consolidation Act, and not by the Collector under the provisions of Section, 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, so as to undo the acts performed by the consolidation authorities. In holding that Sucha Singh tenant in that case was not entitled to any relief under Section 43 of the Act, the learned judges were influenced by the fact that the possession of the land in dispute was delivered to the landlord by the consolidation authorities and there was no forcible dispossession of the tenant, as is apparent from the concluding paragraph of that judgment, the relevant portion of which runs as under :-