CHAND KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, challenge is to orders dated 5.11.1980, 15.10.1981, 25.5.1982 and 5.2.1982 (Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-4 to P-5) passed by the Collector (Agrarian), Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, Financial Commissioner (Appeals) and Collector (Agrarian), Bhatinda, respectively whereby land measuring 15 kanals 12 marlas inherited by Naib Singh son of Gurdit Singh from his mother, Sant Kaur, has been ordered to be added to his land holding for determination of surplus area in his hands.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that Naib Singh son of Gurdit Singh owned land measuring 327 kanals 4 marlas. Collector vide order dated 4.11.1976 declared land measuring 1.4618 hectares as surplus. In appeal preferred by the land- owner, Commissioner vide order dated 21.12.1977 upheld the order of the Collector, but observed that since some more land has come to Naib Singh by way of inheritance from his mother, the Collector should take note of the same and ascertain his surplus area accordingly. After remand, landowner, Naib Singh and also his sisters, namely, Chand Kaur, Gurnam Kaur, Narain Kaur, Chaitan Kaur, Mukhtiar Kaur and Biro @ Balbir Kaur (petitioners herein) put in appearance before the Collector Agrarian. Petitioners (sisters of Naib Singh) contended that Sant Kaur had bequeathed her property in their favour, being her daughters, on the basis of Will dated 9.3.1974 and therefore, mutation No. 2313 sanctioned on 8.6.1976 in favour of their brother, Naib Singh, showing that he had inherited 1/7th share from his mother, is not binding on them. Petitioners in order to prove that their mother had bequeathed her property in their favour, produced before the Collector judgment and decree dated 21.8.1980 of the Civil Court whereby validity of the Will had been upheld. Collector Agrarian vide his order dated 5.11.1980, Annexure P-1, held that decree dated 21.8.1980 is collusive and liable to be ignored because the same is hit by the provisions of Section 4(5) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (in short the Act). Accordingly, area measuring 1.8201 hectares of first quality in the hands of Naib Singh, landowner, was declared surplus. Land-owner was asked to give his choice of surplus area. Petitioners took the matter in appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, who did not find any illegality in the order of the Collector and held that the decree is collusive and not binding because of provisions of Section 4(5) of the Act. Petitioners preferred revision petition before the Financial Commissioner who also held that the Will and Civil Court decree are collusive and were obtained for the purpose of diminishing the surplus area. At this stage, it deserves to be noticed that after decision dated 15.12.1980 of the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur (and before order dated 25.5.1982 passed by the Financial Commissioner), the Collector Agrarian vide order dated 5.2.1982 declared as surplus the land comprised in Khasra No. 108(28-9), 109(25-11) and 110 min (12-1) total measuring 66-1 kanals equal to 1.8201 hectares of first quality land, and included the same in surplus pool. Petitioners have challenged the orders impugned in this petition on the ground that the Authorities below acted erroneously in ignoring Civil Court decree merely on the inference that the decree was obtained collusively.

(3.) Upon notice, respondents have filed written statement in which they have stated that on the record available on the surplus area file, there is only a photostat copy of unregistered Will dated 9.3.1974 executed by Sant Kaur in favour of petitioners. Respondents have stated that after the death of Sant Kaur, mutation No. 2313 was sanctioned in favour of Naib Singh and six daughters, i.e. petitioners, in equal share on the basis of natural succession. Respondents have further averred that at the time of sanctioning of mutation, no mention was made in regard to Will dated 9.3.1974. Respondents have admitted that petitioners had filed civil suit in the Court of Sub-Judge, Bhatinda, to the effect that they are owners in possession of 1/4th share of 436 kanals 5 marlas, which was decreed, but it is contended that the same has rightly been ignored by the Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner being collusive. Respondents have further stated that possession of the surplus area was taken on behalf of the State on 10.4.1982 and allotment thereof was made to one Makhan Singh vide order dated 28.4.1982. Respondents, thus, have stated that the writ petition may be dismissed.