HARBANS SINGH Vs. AJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AJIT Singh and Smt. Mohinder Kaur are landowners in villages Tungpain and Sultanwind, Tahsil and District Amritsar (hereinafter called the 'landowners' ). They owned 106 standard acres 10 3/4 units of land at the commencement of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. 1953, (hereinafter called the 'act'), out of which land measuring 43 standard acres 14 1/2 units was under an orchard. They sold away 31 standard acres 10 3/4 units of land to different vendees between 1955 and 1958, which sales were ignored by the Collector while determining their surplus area. A part of that land had been sold in favour of Gurbux Singh and Harbans Singh sons of Ch. Hari Singh (hereinafter called the 'appellants') on April 24, 1958. On June 16. 1958, the landowners submitted forms 'a' and 'e' to the Collector, Surplus Area, selecting their permissible area. They did not include the land sold in favour of the appellants in their reserved area but showed it as surplus. On March 14, 1961, the Collector, Surplus Area, decided the case by ignoring the alienations made by the landowners and declared 25 standard acies 11 1/4 units of land as surplus. Against that order, the appellants filed an appeal which was accepted by the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur Division, on March 6, 1964, on the ground that the landowners had played a fraud on the appellants who had paid full price for the area purchased by them bona fide. He was of the opinion that the landowners should not have allowed the area purchased by the appellants to go to the surplus area and that the fact of sale of that area was not brought to the notice of the Collector. Consequently, he held that the area purchased by the appellants formed part of the permissible area of the landowners and directed that necessary adjustments should be made. The landowners filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner which was rejected. The landowners then filed C. W. No. 1008 of 1965 in this Court which was allowed by a learned Single Judge on September 15, 1972, and the orders of the Additional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner dated March 6, 1964, and November 24, 1964, respectively were quashed. The present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against that order of the learned Single judge.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the landowners should not have been allowed to play a fraud on the appellants and the land sold in their favour should have been included in the reserved area of the landowners. There is no provision in the 'act empowering the Collector to change the selection of area made by a land-owner as his permissible or reserved area. There is also no jurisdiction in the Collector, dealing with the case, to determine whether any fraud had been committed by the landowner with any person by selling his land. The matter has been put beyond any dispute by a Division Bench of this Court in Mota Singh v. Financial Commr. , Punjab. 1968 Punj LJ 338, wherein it was held:--

(3.) A similar view was taken by another Division Bench in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab. 1970 Pun LJ 622, wherein it was held:--