NACHHITTAR SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri B.R. Aggarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that even if the facts, as stated above, are assumed to be correct, the Collector had no jurisdiction by virtue of section 43 of the Act to evict a trespasser and to restore possession to a person to whom land had been allotted under any provision of that Act. It is argued that as soon as the land was declared surplus, it vested under the Act, in the State Government and all interest, rights and title of the landowner in it became extinct, and that if the former landowner forcibly re-enters into possession by dispossessing an allottee under Section 32-J of the Act, his act is no better or no worse than that of any other trespasser. Mr. B.R. Aggarwal contends that all the proceedings which the various authorities were competent to take under the Act, had been completed in this case and nothing further remained to be done, viz., the land was declared surplus, it vested in the State which duly took possession of it and further allotted and delivered possession to the respondents. According to the counsel, thereafter under this Act, the authorities or the State had become functus officio and, if subsequently, the former landowner forcibly dispossesses the allottees, the remedy of the latter lies under the ordinary law of the land and not by means of petition under section 43 of the Act. In short, it is maintained that the Collector has no power under section 43(1)(b) of the Act to eject a trespasser. In support of this contention, reference has been made to Bur Singh and others V. Commissioner of Patiala Division, 1961 1 ILR(P&H) 546 and Nikka V. Santokh Singh,1959 LLT 52.

(2.) On the other hand, Mr. Majithia, the learned counsel for Respondents 1 to 3, contends that the impugned order was one within the purview of section 43(1)(b) of the Act. He has laid stress on the fact that the land in dispute was allotted to the respondents under section 32-J of the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder with a right to purchase it in easy instalments. This is a case in which neither the former landowner has yet received any compensation for the surplus area nor the allottees have paid the full amount of the purchase price. The completion of this land reform under this Act has been frustrated by an act of petitioners who are representatives-in-interest of the former landowner. The Collector was fully competent, says Mr. Majithia, to prevent such frustration and to see to the effective completion and implementation of the reform by taking action under section 43 of the Act. Mr. Majithia also argues that the rulings cited by the counsel for the petitioners have no application to the facts of the present case.

(3.) Let me consider the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel on either side.