CHARANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner are sons, of Sarwan Singh, respondent No. 2. They are Hindu Jats and are governed by the Hindu Law in the matter of inheritance and succession. They constituted a joint Hindu family and owned some land in the revenue estate of villages Moranwali and, Rajo Majra located I in Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur. The partition of the joint Hindu family land took place early in 1956. The entire land of village Moranwali, measuring 32.72 Standard Acres fell to the share of the petitioners and the land measuring 16. 11 Standard Acres of the village Rajo Majra was retained by their father, respondent No. 2. It was alleged that the petitioners. are in peaceful possession and cultivation of land of village Moranwali, while their father Sarwan Singh is cultivating his land located At village Rajo Majra. During the Consolidation proceeding in the year 1956, the petitioners made an application under Section 30 of the Past Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948, which was accepted by the Consolidation Officer and subsequently mutations Nos. 232 and 233 were entered on 4th September, 1956 and sanctioned in favour of the petitioners on 14th September, 1956. On the basis of these mutation orders, the petitioners were allotted different plots during consolidation proceedings. Thus the petitioners maintained that they and their father were small landowners under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Pepsu Act), but the proceedings for declaring the surplus area under the Pepsu Act were started without giving any notice to the petitioners. The Special Collector II Punjab, vide his order dated 28th August, 1963, declared 2.72 Standard Acres of land located at village Moranwali and the entire land of village Rajo Majra as surplus. The objection raised by the father of the petitioners that the land had been partitioned vide mutation Nos. 232 and 233 sanctioned on 14th September, 1956 between him and the sons were ignored by the Special Collector. The appeal and the revision filed against the order of the Special Collector were also dismissed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner respectively on 28th November, 1963 and 15th July, 1964, vide their respective orders, Annexures, P-7 and P9. The petitioners and respondent - No. 2, however, continued in actual physical possession of the entire land in accordance with their shares as the authorities under the Pepsu Act did not take any steps for taking the possession of the land. Later on, the Authorities under the Punjab Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme, 1973, started utilization proceedings, upon which the petitioners filed objections before the Collector, Malerkotla, inter alia contending that the land in question was never declared as surplus area and the orders of the officers passed under the Papsu Act being without jurisdiction were void and non-est. The Collector, however, rejected their objections vide order Annexure P-4, dated 3rd September, 1973, without going into the merits of these objections, but on the ground that as the order of the Special Collector declaring the above referred area surplus in the hands of Sarwan Singh has become final, no further action was called for. The petitioners then filed appeal/revision before the Commissioner, Patiala Division and the Commissioner vide his order dated 16th June, 1975, Annexure P-2, recommended the case to the Financial Commissioner for modifying the order of Special Collector in order to exclude the area which vested in the petitioners vide mutation -- Nos. 232 and 233. The Financial Commissioner, however, rejected" the reference vide his order dated 26th July, 1979, Annexure P-1, mainly on the ground that it would amount to reviewing the order of his predecessor.

(2.) Under these circumstances, the petitioners have invoked the extra. ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the above referred orders of the different Authorities, by contending that the partition between the petitioners and their father on the basis of which mutation Nos. 232 and 233 were sanctioned on 14th September, 1956 had been wrongly ignored, as the provisions of Section 32-KK of the Pepsu Act came into force on 30th October, 1956, i.e. after the above referred partition. It was also maintained that no notice was given to the petitioners by the Special Collector even though the names of the petitioners as owners in possession of the suit property figured in the revenue records since 14th September, 1956. Thus it was maintained that the order of the Special Collector, Annexure P-6, being without jurisdiction and void ab initio, was not required to be, challenged till the petitioners were aggrieved from, the Act of the concerned, Authorities in the year 1973, when they started taking steps to take possession. of the land. It was also maintained that the land in dispute having not been utilised under the Pepsu Act, or under the present Coiling Law, the petitioners were entitled to the permissible area separately from their father being adult sons under Sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act , 1972.

(3.) In return filed on behalf of the State of Punjab, it was maintained that Sarwan Singh, respondent No. 2. father of the petitioners, having not reflected the alleged partition of the laud between him and his sons in form 7-A wider Section 32-D of the Pepsu Act filed on 28th August, 1958, the above referred partition proceedings or the sanctioning of mutations was an attempt to play fraud upon the concerned Authorities in order to save the land from being declared surplus. It was also maintained that the petitioners had no connection with the land which stood in the ownership of their father and the land was rightly. declared surplus in the hands of Sarwan Singh. respondent No. 2. It was averred that as the petitioners had no right or interest in the ownership of the land, there was no necessity to serve them with any notice. The conduct of the petitioners in filing the present Writ petition after a period of nine years was also stressed in order to persuade the Court that no action is called for under the provisions of Article 226 of Constitution.