Ajaib Singh and ors. vs State of Punjab .

D.V. Sehgal, J.

This regular second appeal was originally filed by Ajaib Singh plaintiff appellant against the judgment and decree dated 21.4.1979 passed in appeal by the learned District Judge, Faridkot, affirming the judgment and decree of SubJudge First Class, Faridkot dated 15.6.1978 whereby the suit brought by the appellant and his three brothers Niranjan Singh, Karnail Singh and Jarnail Singh for permanent injunction was dismissed. During pendency of this appeal C.M. No. 1316C of 1986 was filed by Niranjan Singh and Karnail Singh stating that they be impleaded as respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to the appeal, their interest is common with that of the appellant and there is no clash inter se. They prayed for being transposed as appellant. This application was allowed vide my order dated May 15, 1986. A similar prayer was made through C.M. No. 1318C of 1986 by Jarnail Singh respondent No. 4 which was also allowed by me vide order of the same date.

The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the State of Punjab, defendant respondent No. 1 through Collector, Faridkot from dispossessing them from land measuring 147 kanals 4 marlas described in the plaint situated in village Ajitwal, Tehsil Moga, District Faridkot. They alleged that their father Nand Singh owned the said land out of which he transferred about 20 acres by registered sale deed dated 17.10.1957 in favour of Kasturi Lal. The said sale was preempted by the appellants by a suit which was decreed in their favour on 3.8.1959. Nand Singh sold another piece of land to Ram Nath adopted son of Dhani Ram vide sale deed dated 17.10.1957. The appellants preempted this sale also by a suit which was decreed in their favour on 3.8.1959. They thus contended that they were owners of the suit land The Collector (Agrarian) vide order dated 25.1.1961 finally declared 21 standard acres 51/4 units of land surplus in the hands of Nand Singh by taking into account the aforesaid land to be his ownership. Their case was that the aforesaid order of the Collector is not binding on them as they were neither served with a notice nor were they given an opportunity to establish the fact that they and not Nand Singh were the owners of the suit land. They contended that qua them, therefore, the proceedings taken under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 are void and non est. Defendant No. 1 threatened to dispossess them. They served a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. on it and thus filed the suit.

The suit was contested by respondent No. 1. The factum of sale of the suit land by Nand Singh in favour of Karturi Lal and Ram Nath and successful preemption of the said sales by the appellants was denied. It was maintained that the proceedings for surplus area in the hands of Nand Singh were in accordance with law and the order passed by the Collector is valid. It was further submitted that Karnail Singh appellant had filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division which was dismissed on 19.4.1961 and this decision was affirmed later on by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 17.6.1961.

On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court, framed the following issues:

(1) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit ? OPD.

(2) Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD.

(3) Whether notice u/s 80 C.P.C. is contrary to the express provisions of law as alleged ? If so, its effect. OPD.

(4) Whether the order of the Collector Agrarian is null and void and is not binding on the plaintiff ? OPP.

(5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction prayed for ? OPP.

(6) Relief.

The trail Court held that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction; that the suit was not barred by time; that the notice was invalid and that the order of the Collector was valid. The suit was consequently dismissed. On appeal, the learned District Judge, affirmed the findings of the trial Court on issues Nos. 1 and 2. The findings on issue No. 3 was reversed and it was held that the notice under section 80 C.P.C. served by the appellants in the respondentState was valid. However, under issue No. 4 it was observed that the only evidence that had been produced by the appellants to prove their assertion that they had become the owners of the suit land, was Jamabandi Exhibit P. 4 which contained a note in the column Kafiat with regard to sales made by Nand Singh in favour of Kasturi Lal and Ram Nath and the decrees for preemption of the said sales passed by the Civil Court in favour of the appellants. The copies of neither the mutations nor preemption decrees, so as to show that the appellant shad become owners of the suit land had been produced. Jamabandi Exhibit P. 4 was found of the trial Court was, therefore, affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.

It may be noted that during the pendency of the appeal before the learned District Judge, the appellants had moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. for production of additional evidence i.e. copies of the subsequent Jamabandis, mutations and the preemption decrees. But this application was disallowed. In this Court again the appellants filed C.M. Nos. 1356 C1 and 2421C of 1986 for adducing additional evidence in the form of certified copies of the two preemption decrees, mutations and the Jamabandis.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The case entirely hinges on the question whether the appellants should be allowed to produce certified copies of the preemption decrees, mutations and the Jamabandis which have a direct bearing and are the key to prove conclusively that the property in dispute was sold by Nand Singh to two different vendees. Karturi Lal and Ram Nath and these sales were successfully preemped by the appellants and they continued to be regarded as owners of the suit land. There is no dispute that Jamabandis Exhibit P.4 which was produced before the trail Court did contain a mention in the column of Kafiat with regard to the aforesaid sales by Nand Singh and preemption of the same through decrees of the Civil Court by the appellants. These documents are certified copies of the official record and there is no doubt whatsoever about their genuineness. It appears that the appellants were illadvised to rest content by producing Jamabandi Exhibit P. 4 to establish their claim for decree of injunction. I agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that it is ultimately for the Collector on affording due opportunity to them to determine finally whether the land in suit was sold by Nand Singh to the vendees aforesaid and these sales were preempted by the appellants and they as owners are having a valid title in respect of the same. All that the trial Court was required to determine was whether the appellants had a right to be heard before the said land was treated as to be in the ownership of Nand Singh and taken into account for declaring surplus area in his hands. I, therefore, find that it would be defeating the ends of justice if the appellants are not allowed to produce this additional evidence. Production of the same is in fact for a substantial cause and would enable me to pronounce judgment for dispensing justice. I, therefore, allow production of the certified copies of the following documents which are duly exhibited as mentioned against them:

(i) Entry in the General Register (Civil) regarding cases decided Receipt Nos. 966 and 967. Exhibit PA/1.

(ii) Decree dated 3.8.1959 in suit No. 550 Niranjan Singh and others Vs. Kasturi Lal passed by Sub Judge Moga Exhibit PA/2.

(iii) Decree dated 3.8.1959 in suit No. 551 Niranjan Singh and other Vs. Ram Nath passed by Sub Judge, Moga, Exhibit PA/3.

(iv) Mutation No. 5990 of village Ajitwal regarding Hadbast No. 39 Khata Nos. 405, 617 and 618. Exhibit PA/4.

(v) Mutation No. 5996 of village Ajitwal regarding Hadbast No. 39 Khata Nos. 405, 617, 618. Exhibit PA/5.

(vi) Mutation No. 5985 of village Ajitwal regarding Hadbast No. 39, Khata Nos. 405, 617, 618. Exhibit PA/6.

(vii) Order of Assistant Collector Second Grade regarding Mutation No. 5995 dated 16.11.1959, Exhibit PA/7.

(viii) Order of Assistant Collector Second Grade regarding Mutation No. 5985 dated 16.11.1960. Exhibit PA/8.

(ix) Jamabandi for the year 196364 recording or the appellants as owners of the suit land. Exhibit PA/9.

(x) Jamabandi for the year 196970 recording the appellants as the owners of the suit land. Exhibit PA/10.

(xi) Jambandi for the year 197475 recording the appellants as owners of the suit land. Exhibit PA/11.

The above evidence clearly brings out that the appellants were recorded as owners of the suit land long before the order of the Collector (Agrarian) treating the said land to be the ownership of Nand Singh and declaring on its basis surplus land in his hands to the tune of 21 standard acres 51/4 units.

It now stands concluded by the Full Bench judgment of this Court, in State of Haryana and others v. Vinod Kumar and others, 1987 R.R.R. 81 : 1986 P.L.J. 161 that where no notice is issued nor an opportunity of being heard is offered to those who are recorded as owner of the land before an order is passed declaring the same as surplus in the hands on a big landowner, the owners so recorded are not legally bound by such an order. It is held that the order passed in exercise of the jurisdiction by the authorities under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, are judgments/orders in personam. The fundamental principle as to their nature is that only bind the parties to it or the parties named therein. So far as the person who is neither a party nor named in such an order is concerned the order in the eye of law is ineffective and non est and as such he is under no obligation to take proceedings to get it set aside. Following this dictum, I hold that the order of the Collector dated 25.1.1961 declaring 21 standard acres 51/4 units of land as surplus in the hands of Nand Singh by taking into account the suit land to be the ownership of Nand Singh is not binding on the appellants. As such in pursuance of the said order, the appellants cannot be dispossessed.

I, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and grant a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the appellants restraining defendant No. 1 from dispossessing them from the suit land in pursuance of order dated 25.1.1961 passed by the Collector (Agrarian). The Collector having jurisdiction in the matter shall, however, be at liberty to take proceedings in accordance with law by affording due opportunity to the appellants to determine the validity of the transfer of ownership of the land in suit to them. There shall be no order as to costs.