NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have been non-suited on the ground that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit filed by them in view of Section 47 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Land (Second Amendment) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Having failed before the first appellate Court, they are in regular second appeal. It is claimed that a substantial question of law relating to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil Court, which cannot be readily inferred and certainly could not have been inferred in the present case on the basis of well settled principle, arises in this case. It is further the case of the appellants that the manner in which the issue has been taken up and decided as a preliminary issue was also contrary to law and hence would also require to be dealt with being a substantial question of law.

(2.) The facts leading to filing of the suit and the present regular second appeal may be noticed in brief.

(3.) Appellant Niranjan Singh and his five brothers (four minors) being son of Amar Singh had filed a suit against the State of Punjab and 14 others for possession of the land measuring 88 kanals 6 marlas described in the head note of the plaint. It is claimed in the plaint that the plaintiffs owned agricultural land measuring 345 Bighas 10 Biswas in village Rathian, which was ancestral and coparcenary property of the appellants. Appellants No. 3 to 6 were minor at the time of filing of the suit. It is further disclosed that the Act came into force on 30.10.1956. At that time, the whole land in the revenue record was shown in the name of Amar Singh, father of the appellants. It is claimed that Amar Singh inherited his land from his father and, therefore, the property was coparcenary. Accordingly, the appellants did not file any return as required under Section 32-B of the Act because share of the appellants did not exceed the permissible area. The Collector (Agrarian), however, is stated to have started proceedings under Sections 32-C and 32-D of the Act without notice to the appellants and declared an area measuring 7.76 S.A. of land as surplus. This order was passed on 27.1.1960. Suit was filed terming this order passed by the Collector as wholly without jurisdiction and nullity being contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Act and for being in violation of principles of natural justice. Attacking this order, further it is claimed that the same was bad as the property was coparcenary property of the appellants and, therefore, their individual share did not exceed the permissible area. It is pleaded that no notice was ever issued to the appellants by the Collector besides pleading that some area was under the cultivating possession of the tenants and if that part of the property was taken possession of the remaining area, then the land of the appellants did not exceed the permissible area. It was stated that the consolidation of holdings in the village had been held and the Collector was under obligation to separate the surplus area before the same could be utilized, which was not done and, accordingly, it is claimed that the disputed land had been illegally taken by the Collector. The appellants have thus claimed back their possession. The suit was contested by the State of Punjab and other defendants. Separate written statements were filed by the State and the other defendants. However, the plea in both the written statements was more to less identical. Apart from the other submissions, it was pleaded that civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit because the same was barred under the Act. On merits, it was submitted that the Collector had taken the possession of the land after declaring the area of Amar Singh as surplus and had utilized the same in 1961 itself. Written statement further disclosed that the defendants other than the State had been in possession of this area claiming themselves to be owners and if for any reason the declaration of the land as surplus was not legal, then they had become owners by adverse possession as a period of more than 12 years had already expired before the present suit was filed. It is also the stand of the defendant-respondents that the appellants had not intentionally given the date of their dispossession in order to avoid detection of the fact that the suit was time barred. In this regard, it was submitted that the area had been declared surplus in the year 1960 and utilized in 1961. It is also disclosed that the consolidation had taken place 14 to 15 years from the date of filing of the suit and the defendant-allottees of the area had been given new khasra numbers in lieu of the old after repartition during consolidation.