KARNAIL KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Ist petitioner is the mother of petitioners 2 to 4. The surplus area of the Ist petitioner was determined in accordance with the provisions of Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 by the Collector Agrarian by his order dated 16.1.1961 and held that she was holding 11 Standard Acre 14-1/6 units of land as surplus. An appeal filed by the Ist petitioner before the Commissioner, Patiala was rejected on 23.3.1961. On a further revision to the Financial Commissioner it was directed that the Collector should declare Khasra Nos. 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1031, 1032, 1033 and 1053 as surplus area instead of the land declared by the Collector as surplus area and if there was any deficiency, the same should be made up from the remaining land. This order of the Financial Commissioner was passed on 19.3.1963. In pursuance of the said orders of the Financial Commissioner, the Collector by his order dated 30.5.1963, declared the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1029, 1033, 1053/2, 1055, 436/3, 437/1, 438/2 and 439/2 as surplus land. While so, one Ram Singh who was an old tenant applied for proprietary rights under section 22 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. Although the said application was contested by the petitioners, the Assistant Collector granted proprietory rights to the said tenant and the land measuring 63 Bighas and 12 Biswas comprising in Khasra Nos. 408/410, 411, 421, 426/436/3, 437/1, 438/2 and 439/1. Though the lands were declared surplus no action has been taken to take the possession of the same from the petitioners. Only on 9.8.1974 the Collector issued a notice to the petitioners 2 to 4 to surrender the possession of the alleged surplus area. They filed objections stating that they purchased Khasra Nos. 1005 to 1007, 1014 to 1016, 1031 to 1033 and 1053 from the Ist petitioner and that they would suffer irreparable loss because the ownership of the land was acquired by the tenant and the area which was purchased by the tenant had to be excluded from the quantum of surplus area. The Collector rejected the objections of the petitioners 2 to 4 dated 11.2.1975 and the appeal was also rejected by the Commissioner on 27.1.1978. The further revision filed by the petitioners 2 to 4 was also rejected by the Financial Commissioner on 15.5.1980. Meanwhile proceedings were started against the Ist petitioner under the Punjab Land Reforms Act and it was found that she did not hold any land in excess of her permissible area limit as defined under the Punjab Land Reforms Act. The petitioners 2 to 4 are challenging these orders in this writ petitions passed by the authorities below on their objections on the ground that they were the purchasers of the land from the Ist petitioner and they will be left with no land within their permissible limit if the possession of the land was taken away from them. They further stated that the application of the tenant Ram Singh under section 22 of the Pepsu Act 1955 was allowed and proprietary rights were conferred on him. It is their further prayer that the landowner can exclude the tenants area from counting towards the landowner's holding. They further stated that the orders were passed in an arbitrary manner and the surplus land has not been utilised and therefore, it does not vest in the Government and therefore, they prayed that the orders of the Collector Agrarian dated 11.2.1975 and the orders of the appellate authority namely Commissioner Patiala Division dated 27.1.1978 and the orders of the Financial Commissioner dated 15.5.1980, be quashed.

(2.) The Ist petitioner Karnail Kaur filed a declaration under Section 32 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. After enquiry, the Collector determined that she was in possession of 4.1 Standard Acre 14-1/6 units of land as surplus and as she was entitled to 30 St. acres under the Act as her permissible area, the remaining land of 11 St. Acres 1.6 units was declared as surplus by the Collector by his order dated 10.1.1961. On a further revision to the Financial Commissioner against the said order Karnail Kaur was allowed to retain Khasra Nos. 193 to 200, 215 to 219, 225, 278 and 524 as part of her permissible area and held that the surplus area be taken from Khasra Nos. 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1031, 1032, 1033 and 1053 and the deficiency if any be made up from the remaining land. In compliance of the said order of the Financial Commissioner, the Collector Agrarian, Sangrur passed order dated 30.5.1963. The said order has become final. It is also to be seen that one Ram Singh claiming to be the tenant filed an application before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sangrur for grant of proprietary rights in respect of the land comprising in Khasra Nos. 408, 410, 411, 421, 422, 423, 425, 426, 436/3, 437/1 and 439/1 measuring about 63 bighas and 12 biswas belonging to Karnail Kaur. Then the daughters of Karnail Kaur who are said to have purchased the land from their mother filed an objection petition on 19.8.1974 stating that Khasra Nos. 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1031, 1032, 1033 and 1053 might be given to Ram Singh instead of Khasra Nos. 410, 411, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 436, 437, 438 and 439. But their objections were negatived by the Collector by his order dated 11.2.1975. Their appeal was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division.

(3.) The petitioners 2 to 4 have no right to seek that a particular land has to be included in the permissible area of their mother (petitioner No.1). The orders passed under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 have become final. The Ist petitioner has not taken any steps to have those orders passed under 1955 Act set aside. In fact a revision to the Financial Commissioner was allowed and certain other khasra numbers as surplus area was accepted and the Financial Commissioner remanded the matter of the Collector to take certain Khasra Nos as surplus area to the Ist petitioner. Therefore, the Ist petitioner cannot have any grievance in regard to the said orders. If Ram Singh was a tenant and his rights were declared under the Act, in respect of the land in which he was tenant, it is not for the petitioners to say that the khasra numbers which have been declared surplus in the hands of the Ist petitioner be allotted to Ram Singh. Further the sale of the land in favour of petitioners 2 to 4 is not a valid sale. The petitioners failed to show that the sale in their favour by the Ist petitioner is a valid and bona fide sale.