(1.) PRESENT writ petition is under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions against the respondents, i. e. State of Punjab; Financial Commissioner; Collector (Agrarian), Ferozepur, and Tek Chand son of Lekh Raj deceased (now represented by his legal representatives), respondents Nos. 1 to 4 respectively. The case set up by the petitioners is that respondent No. 4 Tek Chand was a big landlord and he owned land measuring 1020 Standard Acres and 9 Units in different villages of Ferozepur District. The surplus area case of respondent No. 4 Tek Chand deceased was decided by the Collector, Ferozepur, vide order dated 18. 9. 1963 under Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short 'the old act' ). Learned Collector vide annexure P-2 declared the land measuring 673 Standard Acres 14-1/2 Units surplus and out of this area the land measuring 72 Standard Acres, 3/4 Units, which was brought under 'garden' between 15. 4. 1953 to 30. 7. 1958 was ordered not to be utilised for resettlement of tenants. Certain tenants of village Khuyvan Sarvar appealed against the said order of the Collector. The Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the collector vide order dated 6. 1. 1966 for determining the tenant's permissible area. After the remand the collector vide order dated 7. 4. 1969 (Annexure P-2) decided the case of respondent No. 4. Exemption of the area under orchard was kept intact. The petitioners purchased 492 Kanals 3 Marlas of land in village Chak Dastool Sahib from respondent No. 4 Tek Chand deceased under two registered sale deeds dated 27. 1. 1972 and 24. 3. 1972. Out of the area so purchased, area measuring 31 Kanals 6 Marlas was the permissible area of Tek Chand and the remaining area was out of the area exempted from utilisation. Mutation of the land purchased by the petitioners was sanctioned in the year 1972 and the petitioners entered into actual physical possession thereof. Thereafter the petitioners made lot of improvements on the land and spent Rs. 2. 5 lacs. They also built residential house on the land in question. Thereafter the Punjab land Reforms Act (for short 'the New Act') came into force on 2. 4. 1973 and as per Section 3 (1) of this Act the appointed date is 24. 1. 1971. On 3. 12. 1975 Tek Chand filed an appeal against the order of the Collector dated 7. 4. 1969 (Annexure P-2) and the Commissioner accepted the appeal vide order dated 14. 6. 1976 and remanded the case to the Collector for fresh decision. The Collector vide order dated 4. 5. 1977 again decided the surplus area of respondent No. 4 and he in an illegal manner reduced the limit of the area exempted from utilisation from 72 standard Acres 3/4 units to 19 standard Acres and 12 Units and thereby included the area purchased by the petitioners in the surplus pool of respondent No. 4. The petitioners alleged that no notice was given to them in spite of the fact that they were the bona fide purchasers and they have been shown as landowners in the revenue record. They were interested and the necessary parties. Under the law it was obligatory for the Collector to issue notice before passing the impugned order dated 4. 5. 1977, as the case had been remanded to him for fresh decision. By not doing so, the Collector had violated the principles of natural justice and passed prejudicial orders against the petitioners at their back without affording them any opportunity. This order dated 4. 5. 1977 is annexure P-3. The petitioner further claimed that the land measuring 72 Standard Acres 3/4 units being a garden, which was set up by respondent No. 4 Tek Chand deceased between 15. 4. 1953 to 13. 7. 1958 was exempted from utilisation as ordered by the Collector previously vide order dated 18. 9. 1963 (Annexure P1) and the said order of the Collector was never challenged by the State by way of appeal or otherwise. Even while passing the order (Annexure P3) the Collector agreed with the order (Annexure P-1) to that extent. As per Section 4 (5) of the New Act, the bona fide transferees for consideration are required to be protected. The Collector after remand illegally decided the case under the old Act i. e. , the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act; rather he ought to have decided the surplus area case of respondent No. 4 under the New Act, i. e. Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, so far as these provisions are inconsistent. Petitioner's case further is that on 22. 6. 1977 they filed an appeal against the order Annexure P-3 of the Collector and the Commissioner dismissed the appeal vide order (P-5) on 22. 12. 1977. Vide order (P7) even the Financial Commissioner dismissed the revision and in this manner the orders Annexures P-3, P5 and P-7 are being challenged in the present writ petition mainly on the ground that the petitioners are the bona fide purchasers; that the area ought to be exempted from utilisation being a garden, which was set up between 15. 4. 1953 to 30. 7. 1958 and the Collector could not reduce this area from 72 Standard Acres 4 Units to 19 Standard Acres and 12 Units, as per wishes of respondent No. 4. The surplus area case of respondent No. 4 ought to be decided as per the new provisions of Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972; that the petitioners are the bona fide purchasers of the land from respondent No. 4 and they had made considerable improvements on the land and that the order of the Collector has been passed at the back of the petitioners and in this manner all the three authorities have illegally decided the surplus area case of respondent No. 4. In these circumstances, the orders (Annexure P3, P5 and P7) ought to be quashed.
(2.) TWO sets of written statement are on the record-one filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 who have admitted the factual position as alleged by the petitioners but, however, they have tried to justify the orders (Annexure P3, P5 and P7 ). Real contest has been given by respondent No. 4, who alleged that the present petition has been filed with a mala fide intention. In fact Tek Chand was the Karta of the joint family consisting of himself and his sons and he employed Gurdarshan Lal father of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 as Manager for looking after the lands of his family, in villages Dastool Sahib Wala and Mohkam Khan Wala, Tehsil Ferozepur in the year 1965. a residential house was provided to him. Said Gurdarshan Lal and his family started residing in the house. Gurdarshan Lal showed good results as a farm Manager because of his efficient management. This resulted in bringing closer Gurdarshan Lal to respondent No. 4. Earlier Gurdarshan Lal was appointed on a monthly salary of Rs. 250/- per month and later on his salary was increased. In the beginning of 1972, respondent No. 4 was mentally agitated because of the impending Agrarian Legislation, and in order to save his land from being declared surplus, he ostensibly transferred his land to different persons including his relations and friends. Tek Chand depended upon Gurdarshan Lal who was man of confidence and started executing sale deeds fictitiously in the name of different persons, including the petitioner in order to save his land from being declared surplus. In fact, no money was ever paid to respondent No. 4 in pursuance of the sale deeds being relied upon by the petitioners who, according to this respondent, are not the bona fide purchasers. In fact, the sons of the answering respondents have already filed suits in the Civil Courts challenging the genuineness and validity of the transfers and those suits have been decreed. The petitioners arc not the bona fide purchasers. The case has been rightly decided by the Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner vide orders Annexures P-3, P-5 and P7 and there was no non-compliance of the principles of natural justice and the case of respondent no. 4 has been correctly decided under the Old Act, i. e. the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. The provisions of the New Act, i. e. the Punjab Land Reforms Act, are not attracted to the present case and finally respondent No. 4 prayed for dismissal of the writ petition by filing certain annexures, including Annexure R-2, copy of the judgment dated 29. 7. 1978 passed in Civil Suit No. 56 of 1976 titled Avnash Chander v. Tek Chand.
(3.) THE real contest is between the petitioner and respondent No. 4. A perusal of the written statement filed by respondent No. 4 would show that his main defence is that he executed various sale deeds in order to save his land from agrarian legislation and in his written statement he submitted that sale deeds dated 17. 1. 1972, 22. 2. 1972, 8. 5. 1972, 30. 3. 1972, 27. 3. 1973 and 21. 3. 1972 are some of the sale deeds which have been executed for ostensible consideration. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioners filed Civil Misc. No. 22397 of 1996 and have sought permission to place on record copy of the judgment dated 16. 3. 1994 passed in R. S. A. No. 747 of 1984. Regular Second Appeal was against the judgment and decree dated 28. 10. 1980 passed by the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Ferozepur; and the judgment dated 6. 3. 1984 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ferozepur who affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. The suit was filed by Abhimanyu Ansal and Navin Ansal against the present petitioners and also by impleadings Tek Chand and Gurdarshan Lal as respondents. It was a suit for declaration by the sons of Tek Chand, alleging that the sale deeds executed by their father Tek Chand on 17. 1. 1972 in respect of the land measuring 100 Kanals 17 Marlas situated in village Dastool Sahib in favour of defendant No. 2, i. e. Gurdarshan Lal for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 50,000/- and the sale effected by defendant No. 4 Tek Chand vide sale deed dated 22. 2. 1972 in respect of the land measuring 114 Kanals 12 Marlas situated in village Dastool Sahib in favour of Abnash Chander for ostensible consideration of Rs. 40,000/- was illegal as the property was a joint Hindu Family property and defendant No. 4. Tek Chand sold the property without any legal necessity and for benefits of estate. Though this suit was decreed by the trial Court and the first appellate court but in the second appeal both the judgment were set aside by the High Court and I will incorporate the operative portion of this judgment in the later part of this judgment, but at this stage I want to say that this judgment has a great bearing while deciding the present writ petition and in these circumstances the petitioners are allowed to place on record copy of the judgment dated 16. 8. 1994 was Annexure P-8.