KARTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for quashing of order dated June 22,1983 (Annexure P-3), passed by Collector, order dated August 27, 1984 (Annexure P-4) passed by Commissioner and order January 23, 1986 (Annexure P- 6) passed by Financial Commissioner, being illegal, ultra vires, void and without jurisdiction.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case as mentioned in the writ petition are that Kehar Singh was the landowner who was the father of petitioners No. 1 to 3 and grandfather of petitioners Nos. 4 and 5. Land of Kehar Singh was assessed at 46.72 standard acres by Collector (Agrarian), Nabha, vide order dated 21.12.1959 and an area of 16.72 standard acres was declared surplus under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). An appeal filed against the order of Collector was dismissed in March 1960 by the Commissioner. The surplus area was allotted to certain tenants on March 9, 1964 and possession was delivered to them on April 8, 1964. Meanwhile, consolidation proceedings took place in July 1960. Civil Writ petition No. 1014 of 1964 was filed by the landowner, and the High Court vide judgment dated September 1, 1966 directed that the competent authority to separate the surplus area under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 32-MM of the Act and the case was remanded. It was also directed that the tenants, who had been settled on the land which was declared surplus, would not be disturbed till the final orders were to be passed by the competent authority. On remand by the High Court, the Collector on September 14, 1970 declared surplus area to the extent of 2.37 standard acres. On October 20, 1970 the Collector ordered that the possession of land 14.35 standard acres be restored to the landowners. On November 1, 1970 certain steps were taken for restoration of the land, including the land in dispute to the landowners. In respect of area allotted to and cultivated by the respondents Sondhi and Sauni, it was found that crops were sown and Malkana possession was given to the landowners vide report of the Kanungo dated November 1,1970 and allottees were directed to hand over physical possession after harvesting the crop. One of the re-settled tenants filed an appeal before the Commissioner against the order of Collector dated September 14, 1970, who remanded the case to the Collector on January 18, 1971 with a direction to decide afresh after hearing the re-settled tenants. A revision petition filed by the landowner was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on February 11, 1971 and thereafter the Collector passed a fresh order on May 28, 1974 assessing the total holding at 37.44 standard acres and declared 7.44 standard acres as surplus. Landowners' appeal, revision and the writ petition were dismissed right up to the level of the Supreme Court.

(3.) MR . P.N. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the revenue authorities have wrongly held that the surplus area has been utilized, whereas the possession is still with the petitioners i.e. legal heirs of the petitioners. The allotment made in favour of the allottees and the possession given is not utilization in the eyes of law as no proceedings had taken place under Section 32-MM of the Act before proving the allotment and, therefore, no allotment could be made and, if any, allotment is made i.e. void and legal. He further argued that the utilization comes to an end when the surplus area is set aside and in this case, the utilization must be considered to have come to an end on September 1, 1966 with the remand order of the High Court and, in any case, on September 14, 1970, when Collector declared only 2.37 standard acres as surplus. Mr. Aggarwal in support of his arguments has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Ujjagar Singh (dead) by L.Rs. v. Collector, Bhatinda and another, 1996(3) RCR(Civil) 446 : 1996 PLJ 505 and Full Bench of this Court reported as Smt. Ajit Kaur and others v. The Punjab State and others, 1980 PLJ 354 and Ranjit Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and another, 1981 PLJ 259. Written statement has been filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 which is on record.