DILBARA SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR AGRARIAN REFORMS BARNALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dilbara Singh and six others in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have prayed for setting aside an order passed by the Collector, Agrarian Reforms, respondent No. 1, on 23rd August, 1962 by which an area of 183 Kanals and 8 Marlas was declared as surplus. Simrin Singh, respondent No. 2 brought a suit for possession of 226 Bighas and 18 Biswas kham land and for recovery of Rs. 4,500/- as damages for use and occupation thereof in the civil Court which was decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Barnala, on 31st December, 1953. Gopal Singh father of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 felt aggrieved from this judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge and preferred an appeal which was dismissed. After the above litigation, respondent No. 2 sold 48 Kanals and 17 Marlas of land by registered deed dated the 28th March, 1960, for Rs. 2,850/- in favour of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 who are sons of the said Gopal Singh. He also sold 24 Kanals and 17 Marlas of land by another instrument of sale dated the 7th November, 1960, in favour of petitioners 3 to 6. By still another sale deed dated the 7th November, 1960 he sold 9 Kanals and 9 Marlas of land in favour of petitioner No. 7. Respondent No. 1 by his impugned order declared as surplus area of 19 Standard Acres 13-1/2 Units of land under the provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, out of a total area of 49 Standard Acres and 13-1/2 Units owned by respondent No. 2. He did not take into consideration at the time that 83 Kanals and 3 Marlas of land out of the same had been purchased by the petitioners earlier. They alleged that the order under scrutiny was illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction on the ground that no notice was issued in their names and that the order was passed at their back. The respondents in spite of service did not file their written statements. Respondent No. 1 did not even appear and the proceedings took place ex parte against him. Respondent No. 2 was represented by a counsel who did not oppose the petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his arguments, that the order was invalid because it was passed without notice to them and at their back, referred to Hari Singh v. Financial Commissioner Punjab and another,1965 LLT 111), which laid down :-

(3.) In view of the rule laid down by the Full Bench, the petitioners could not successfully challenge the validity of the order under scrutiny passed by respondent No. 1 simply on the ground that it was passed without notice to them and at their back. It is common ground that the petitioners became owners of the land on the basis of sale deeds executed in 1960, i.e. after 21st August, 1956. Section 32-FF of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act provides that no transfer or other disposition of land effected after 21st August, 1956 shall affect the right of the State Government under the Act to the surplus area to which it would be entitled but for transfer or disposition.