HANUMAN Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two connected writ petitions, bearing Nos. 12171 of 1992 and 12182 of 1994, the only question that needs determination is as to whether the death of a big landowner necessarily entails redetermination of surplus area of land in the hands of successor-in-interest of the big landowner if the land declared surplus under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act had not been utilised till such time the big landowner dies. The question, noted above, emanates from the facts which have been extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 12171 of 1992 (Hanuman v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and others), 1997(1) RCR(Civil) 496 (P&H).

(2.) RULIA Ram was the original landowner. The land owned by him was computed for the purposes of declaring the same surplus under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (here-in-after to be referred to as the Act) by order dated September 16, 1961. Land measuring 57 standard acres and 1 unit was declared as surplus. This order was, however, reviewed on December 17, 1962 vide which land measuring 438 standard acres and 10-3/4 units was declared surplus. After consolidation in the village proceedings under section 24-A(2) of the Act were initiated and vide order dated 28th of March, 1971, an equivalent land to 43 standard acres and 10- 3/4 units was declared surplus. The petitioner is a vendee from Rulia Ram who purchased the land by registered sale deed dated 23rd of January, 1969. He had purchased a piece of land measuring 32 Kanals. The orders declaring land to be surplus were agitated by Rulia Ram and his daughters though unsuccessfully upto the Financial Commissioner. During the pendency of the proceedings by way of appeal or revision, the Government, however, exempted the vendees from big landowners by saying that even though declared surplus the land purchased by the vendees shall not be utilised. This exemption was, however, withdrawn on 19th December, 1972. It may be mentioned here that the revision preferred by Rulia Ram and his daughters was finally disposed of by the Financial Commissioner or 23rd on June, 1981. Before that, however, the vendee Hanuman in the present case also challenged the withdrawal of exemption when proceedings initiated by him were still pending, Rulia Ram the original big landowner died on 21.4.1980. The petitioner added a ground for not utilising his land that he had purchased from the big landowner on the ground that before the land that was declared surplus could be utilised, the big landowner had died and therefore, the authorities concerned were enjoined to compute the land once again which fell to the share of successor-in-interest of Rulia Ram. The petitioner was, however, unsuccessful in his attempt upto Financial Commissioner. It is in the wake of the facts narrated above that the orders passed by the Special Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner Annexures P-1 to P-3 respectively have been challenged in the present writ.

(3.) MR . P.P.S. Sihota, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, however, contends that the decision of the Full Bench in Ajit Kaur's case (supra) cannot come to the rescue of the vendees. However, when confronted with a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Piar Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1989 PLJ 503 : 1989(2) RRR 273(P&H) which deals with the case of a transferee from the big landowner who happened to be the widow of the landlord, the counsel had hardly anything else to say. The Division Bench in Piar Kaur's case (supra) held that the area found surplus under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act which remained unutilised till the death of landowner or enforcement of Punjab Land Reforms Act, has to be determined in the hands of the heirs of landowner. Redetermination has to be made not only when the land of deceased landowner is actually inherited by his natural heirs by succession but also on notional basis. The redetermination cannot be denied on account of the fact that heir had not inherited land but had got it by way of gift or by way of Civil Court decree. On account of death of landowner, order of the Collector in surplus area case under Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, determining landowner's permissible limit, becomes inoperative. If a redetermination has to be done with regard to a transferee through Civil Court decree, it does not sound to reason that such redetermination would not be permissible in the case of vendee.