Balbir Singh vs State of Punjab

J.V. Gupta, C.J.

This is plaintiffs second appeal whose suit for declaration and permanent injunction was decreed by the trial Court, but was dismissed in appeal. Balbir Singh and others sought a declaration to the effect that the order of the Agrarian Collector, Barnala, dated 10.4.1961 declaring 4 standard acres 113/4 units equivalent to 24 bighas 5 biswas entered in Khasra Nos. 1360, 1361, 1362 and 1364, and the order of the Agrarian Collector dated 19.8.1974 ordering the handing over of the possession of the land declared surplus and the order of sanctioning mutation No. 4973 were without jurisdiction illegal, null and void. It was pleaded inter alia that Nand Singh plaintiff was the owner of 207 bighas 19 biswas vide jamabandi 195758. Out of this land Nand Singh made a transfer of 34 bighas 1 biswa of land in favour of Balbir Singh plaintiff vide registered saledeed prior to the declaration of the surplus area and since that time Balbir Singh had continued in possession of the same. Plaintiff Nand Singh also purchased I bigha 6 biswas of gair mumkin abadi. The Collector Agrarian evaluated the entire holding of Nand Singh to be 34 standard acres 113/4 units vide order dated 10.4.1961 declared 4 standard acres 113/4 units to be surplus vide order dared 19.8.1974. The Agrarian Collector, Barnala directed the taking over of the possession of 24 bighas 5 biswas. Thus both these orders were illegal and without jurisdiction inter alia on the ground that no notice of surplus proceedings was served upon the transferees who were interested persons during the proceedings of the declaration of the surplus area.

The suit was contested inter alia on the plea that the transaction in favour of Balbir Singh was effected after the prescribed date i.e. on 21.8.1956 and is thus liable to be ignored under section 32FF and 32DD of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 that the suit was barred by time and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction.

The trial Court found that since no notice was issued to the transferees at the time of declaring the area surplus in the hands of Nand Singh, the said order was non est and nullity. In view of that finding the plaintiff''s suit was decreed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that since the transfer being after 21.8.1956, i.e. the prescribed date and being in favour of prescribed relation was liable to be ignored by the authorities under the Act. As a transferee he was the interested person in the proceedings for declaration of surplus area of Nand Singh and if any order prejudicial to his rights had been passed he could challenge the same. He, however, cannot complain against the order on the basis that while assessing the area of Nand Singh the land transferred to him had been taken into account. Thus, on the facts and the circumstances, absence of such a notice in a case where the rights of the transferee are not at all touched, cannot be put into service by the transferee for challenging the validity of the order. As a result of that finding, the plaintiff''s suit was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffappellant submitted that since the plaintiffs are in continuous possession till today, the surplus area is to be redetermined under the new Act i.e. under the Punjab Land Reforms Act which was enforced on 2.4.1973. In support of his contention reference was made to Ranjit Ram v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue Punjab and others, 1981 PLJ 59 and Rajinder Singh and another v. The State of Punjab and others, 1989(1) RRR 401 (P&H) : 1989 PLJ 168.

After hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Admittedly the suit was filed on 22.12.1975 i.e. after coming into force of the above said Act. No such plea was taken in the plaint by the plaintiff. That being so, he could not be allowed to take such plea for the first time at the time of arguments. Moreover, if he is in continuous possession on account of the stay order passed by the courts, that will not entitle the plaintiff to claim benefit of the provisions of the above said Act. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.