MOHINDER SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Writs Nos. 563, 564 and 565 of 1972 which are against the same order of the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh dated November 19, 1971.

(2.) THE facts as given in Civil Writ No. 563 of 1972 are the Pal Singh, father of the petitioners, was tenant of Raja Baldev Singh, who was a big landowner. He cultivated land comprising khatauni No. 24 Khewat No. 6, Rectangle No. 9, Killas nos. 9, 22/2, Rectangle No. 22, Killas Nos. 2, 3/1, 3/2, 4/1, 4/2, 6/1, 7/1, 8/1, 9/1, measuring 35 Kanals 11 Marlas situated in village Mahiud-din Pur Gazzi, tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur from Kharif, 1951 till Kharif, 1965. He died in february, 1965 and the petitioners continued cultivating the same till today. Raja baldev Singh gifted 25 standard acres 8 units of land in favour of respondent 5 sanjogta Devi, widow of his pre-deceased son Nardev Chand, and the remaining land in favour of his son Barjesh Chander vide Mutation Nos. 142 and 141 dated october 28, 1958. The petitioners made an application, against respondent 5, to respondent No. 4, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade Dasuya on March 12, 1965 for the purchase of the land above-mentioned. The Assistant Collector decided the application in favour of the petitioners on July 30, 1966 (Copy Annexure 'b') and ordered that they could purchase the land in dispute on payment of Rs. 2282. 31 paise. Respondent No. 5 Shrimati Sanjogta Devi went up in appeal before the collector, Hoshiarpur (respondent No. 3), who accepted the same on April 17, 1967 and remanded the case to respondent No. 4 to give a clear finding whether the land in dispute had been given in lieu of the land in possession of the petitioners before consolidation proceedings. Respondent No. 4, vide his order dated May 30, 1968 (copy Annexure "c"), dismissed the application on the ground that respondent No. 5 became the owner of the land in Kharif 1960, that the application had been filed on March 12, 1965 and the same was not maintainable as the petitioners had not completed six years on the date of filing the application. The petitioners went up in appeal before the Collector (respondent No. 3), who dismissed the same on December 27, 1968 (copy Annexure "d" ). The petitioners filed revision against the said order to the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, jullundur (respondent No. 2) which was also dismissed on December 30, 1969 (copy Annexure "e" ). A revision was filed against the order of the Commissioner by the petitioners to the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh (respondent no. 1 ). He also dismissed the same on November 19, 1971 (copy Annexure "f" ). The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid orders on the ground that they are illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction.

(3.) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the land in dispute was reserved by Baldev Singh after making gift in favour of respondent no. 5. He therefore, urges that the reservation is not binding on him. The learned collector while deciding this case observed that the land in dispute fell within the reserved area of Raja Baldev Singh. He gave the finding taking into consideration the statement of Shri Om Parkash, Naib Tehsildar, Agrarian, Dharamsla. Under sub-section (3) of S. 5 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), a landowner is entitled to intimate reservation within six months from the date of commencement o the Act. Thereafter Section 5-B was inserted by the Punjab Security of Land Tenures (Amendment) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act) which came into force on december 20, 1957. By virtue of that section, a landowner who had not exercised his right of reservation under the Act could select his permissible area within a period of six months from the commencement of the Amendment Act and intimate the selection to the prescribed authority in such form and manner as prescribed. The form for selection was prescribed by the Punjab Government vide notification no. 3223-LR. II-57/1624 published in Gazette (Extraordinary) dated March 22, 1958. The limitation of six months therefore should be deemed to have started from that date. As no landowner could furnish a declaration before that form was prescribed and published, the limitation of six months for reservation therefore expired on September 22, 1958. The gift was made by Raja Baldev Singh, admittedly, on October 28, 1958. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show from record that in fact the reservation was made after October 28, 1958. He in support of his contention submitted that the surplus area of Raja baldev Singh was declared on August 22, 1961 and it shall be assumed that he reserved the area on that date. I am unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Merely from the fact that the Collector did not decide the surplus area case of Raja Baldev Singh till August 1961, it cannot be assumed that he made the reservation of permissible area on that date. In the circumstances aforesaid, I do not find any force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The tribunals below have come to a finding that Raja baldev Singh had reserved the land in dispute. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to prove that the aforesaid finding is incorrect. I, therefore, reject this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners.