DHARAM SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mehtab Singh, respondent No. 4, was a big landowner. He owned 74 standard acres and 14 units of land on 15.4.1953. The Collector (Agrarian Reforms) declared 32 standard acres and 9 units of land with Mehtab Singh as surplus, vide his order dated 4.7.1960. The petitioner and his brother Bhagwana were tenants on the land of respondent No. 4. Earlier, Chandgi, father of the petitioner, was the tenant on this land and after his death, the petitioner, and his brother continued to be so. The land under cultivation of the petitioner was 73 Kanals 12 Marlas. In the revenue records, the name of the petitioner was not heard and the case was decided at their back although they were tenants and their names were entered as tenants in the revenue records, and as such they were entitled to a notice from the Collector under Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (hereinafter called the Rules). Still the Collector did not summon them and did not hear them and passed the order dated 4.7.1960 at their back. He included the area comprised in the tenancy of the petitioner and his brother Bhagwana in the permissible area of Mehtab Singh landowner in violation of the provisions of Section 5 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). On the application of Mehtab Singh landowner, the Circle Revenue Officer passed the order dated 27.1.1968 of ejectment of the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rules. By these proceedings, the petitioner came to know that the case of surplus area of Mehtab Singh landowner has been decided by the Collector in 1960. The petitioner applied for a copy of the judgment passed by the Collector and filed an appeal before the Commissioner and submitted that the order had been passed without hearing him though he was an interested person. He also pleaded that he had not earlier known about the order. This appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner on 26.8.1969 on the ground that the appellant could not adduce the proof of his being an old tenant on the land in dispute, before the Circle Revenue Officer. He was also influenced by the fact that the name of the petitioner was not entered as an old tenant in form 'D' which was prepared by the Naib Tehsildar at the time when the case of the landowner regarding surplus area was decided. Dissatisfied with this order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner who held that the tenant-petitioner having not been impleaded and heard, the order which was passed at his back was defective. However, he held that when resettlement proceedings started, the petitioner came to know and took part in the proceedings. Consequently, the Financial Commissioner rejected the revision petition. Dissatisfied with these orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Despite service, respondent No. 4, Mehtab Singh landowner, has not appeared to contest this petition.

(2.) Mr. S.C. Kapoor, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously argued that the order dated 4.7.1960, copy of which is Annexure 'A' to the writ petition, whereby the case of the surplus area of Mehtab Singh landowner was decided, is wholly illegal, void and liable to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner who was an old tenant on the land in dispute was not heard. He has contended that sub-rules (3) and (5) of rule 6 of the Rules casts a duty on the revenue authorities to give opportunity to a landowner and his tenant of being heard. In the present case, the petitioner was an old tenant on the land in dispute. His name was entered in the revenue records as such. It was the duty of the Circle Revenue Officer as well as of the Collector to serve a notice on and hear him before determining the permissible area and the surplus area of Mehtab Singh landowner. This admittedly has not been done in the present case. In support of this plea, Mr. Kapoor has placed reliance on two decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1974 PunLJ 456, (a decision of a Full Bench) and Hardev Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 1971 PunLJ 283(a decision by a Division Bench) wherein it has been held that the authorities have to give an opportunity of hearing to the interested persons under Rule 6 of the Rules while determining the permissible area and surplus area of a landowner. The petitioner being an old tenant was an interested person and therefore entitled to notice. The order dated 4.7.1960 of the Collector, copy of which is Annexure 'A' to the petition, and that of the Commissioner dated 26.8.1969 copy of which is Annexure 'F' to the petition, as also that of the Financial Commissioner dated 29.12.1972 copy of which is Annexure 'G' to the petition, are therefore wholly illegal and void. I consequently allow this petition, set aside the orders Annexures 'A', 'F' and 'G' to the petition and remand the case to the Collector for deciding it afresh in accordance with law and the observations made in this judgment after giving full opportunity to the petitioner as well as other interested persons, if any. Since there is no opposition from the other side, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition accepted.