BAKHTAWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's Bakhtawar Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Keer Singh, residents of village Jandwala Kaharta, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur purchased land measuring 105 Kanals 12 Marlas from Uttam Singh son of Dan Singh, respondent No. 5 landowner of village Banwala Hanwanta, Tehsil, Fazilka, District Ferozepur, on 11th April, 1975. They claim to have paid the entire consideration of Rs. 40,000/- to respondent No. 5 in cash and on the basis thereof the land in dispute was later on mutated in their favour. Thus, the petitioner came to be recorded a landowners of 105 Kanals 12 Marlas of land by virtue of the purchase made by them and the fact having been evidenced the mutation sanctioned in their favour.

(2.) On 12th January, 1977, the Collector (Agrarian), respondent No. 4, declared 06308 hectares of land in village Banwala Hanwanta as surplus in the hands of Utam Singh, respondent No. 5. The land declared surplus included the land in dispute sold by the said respondent to the petitioners on 11th April, 1975. In pursuance of his order dated 12th Jan. 1977, the Collector (Agrarian), Fazilka, respondent No. 4, proceeded to issue notice under section 9 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act , 1972, for taking possession of the land declared as surplus. Against this notice dated 19th March, 1979, issued by the Collected (Agrarian), Fazilka, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, which was dismissed on 27th June, 1979 (Annexure P-3). Aggrieved against this order of the Commissioner, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, respondent No. 3, which was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on 4th September, 1979 (Annexure P-5). Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 12th January, 1977 passed by the Collector (Agrarian), Annexure P-1, the appellate order of the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, dated 27th June, 1979 (Annexure P-3) and the order dated 4th September, 1979, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab (Annexure P-5) dismissing the revision petition, the petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) At the very outset, learned counsel of the petitioners Mr. Nand Lal Dhingra, has confined his attack on the impugned orders on the short ground that no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners before the land in dispute was included in the area declared surplus in the hands of respondent No. 5. Thus, his grievance is that the land in dispute having been purchased by the petitioners on 11th April, 1975, which fact also stood recorded in the revenue records in the form of mutations sanctioned in their favour, the order dated 12th January,1977, passed by the Collector (Agrarian), respondent No. 2, was illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. In support of his contention, he places firm reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Harnek Singh and another v. The State of Punjab and others, 1971 PunLJ 727 (judgment of five Judges). This Full Bench decision has again been followed by another Full Bench of five Judges in State of Haryana & others v. Vinod Kumar and others, 1986 PunLJ 161, thereby authoritatively pronouncing that the transferee of land from a big landowner was an interested party and had a legal right to be heard by the Collector before passing an order declaring the land to be surplus in the hands of the big landowner, that is, the original vendor, from whom the transferee (s) had purchased the land.