STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. DEV RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal against whom the suit for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed by the trial Court, but decreed in appeal.

(2.) The suit land was declared surplus in the lands of Maghi Ram, the father of the plaintiffs, vide copy of the order, Exhibit D.7, by the Collector, Agrarian Reforms, Patiala, on June 20, 1961, under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. During the proceedings the said Maghi Ram took the plea that the land belonged to the joint Hindu family comprising of himself and his sons and that it had been partitioned on September 22, 1956 and that the deed of partition was registered on January 16,1958. He pleaded the said partition in the said proceedings for excluding the area allotted to his sons in the partition. It was not accepted by the authorities. Vide order dated June 20, 1961, as noticed above, the land measuring 19.15 standard acres was declared as surplus in his hands. The said order was challenged in the suit on the ground that in view of the registered deed of partition, the plaintiffs will be considered to be the transferees from their father Maghi Ram, the landowner and, therefore, were entitled to be heard before an order could be passed under the above said Act for determining the surplus area. Since no notice was given to them, the impugned order was wrong, illegal and void. In the written statement filed on behalf of the State of Punjab, it was pleaded that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit. They were not entitled to any notice because the partition, if, any, between the father and the sons was of no consequence. The trial Court found that the order, Exhibit D.7 was quite valid. The notice was necessary if there was any transfer in favour of the persons claiming as owners, but in the present case, the alleged transfer in the name of the plaintiffs was ignored by the Collector as well as by the higher authorities. In view of these findings, the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs being the transferees as contemplated under section 32-KK(b) of the aforesaid Act, were entitled to notice. Since no notice was given to them, the order, Exhibit D.7, was illegal. In view of that finding, the plaintiffs' suit was decreed. Dissatisfied with the same, the State of Punjab has filed this second appeal in this Court.

(3.) The only argument raised on behalf of the appellants is that since the partition was of no consequence in view of section 32-FF, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any notice. Moreover, no mutation was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs at the time when the order declaring the area surplus in the hands of Maghi Ram was passed in June, 1961.