Dalip Singh vs State of Punjab

K.S. Narang, F.C.

This is a revision petition under section 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, against the order dated 3rd August, 1981 of the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 9.6.1980 of the Collector Agrarian, Gurdaspur, in surplus area case of Bakhsha Singh, landowner respondent No. 2.

Brief facts of the case are that Collector Agrarian, Gurdaspur, by his order dated 18.6.1958 declared 6 standard acres 81/4 units as surplus with Bakhsha Singh (landowner). Due to nonavailability of concerned surplus area file in the record room, no action was taken regarding the allotment of surplus area. The surplus area file was constructed de novo with the permission of the Commissioner. Notice was again served on the landowner and the Collector Agrarian by his order dated 9.6.1980 declared the area, already declared surplus in 1958. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jullundur, who dismissed it on 3.8.1981 after appraisal of the evidence produced before him by the concerned parties. Aggrieved from this order, Dalip Singh etc. have filed this revision petition.

The main points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that Bakhsha Singh landowner gifted 65.15 Marlas of land in village Suchetgarh to Smt. Kartar Kaur through a registered gift deed dated 10.3.1958, reflected in mutation No. 756 dated 22.4.1961 and that the petitioners were transferees from the said Smt. Kartar Kaur under a Will dated 23.1.1969 vide mutation No. 968, sanctioned on 3.4.1980; the petitioners being necessary parties should have been heard by the Collector Agrarian while deciding the surplus case of Bakhsha Singh, landowner again on 9.6.1980, in view of the ruling reported in 1980 P.L.J. 583. He has also taken a new plea that the surplus area assessed in 1980 should have been dealt with under the provisions of Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 and not under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, which stood repealed with the enforcement of new Act, 1972. Shri Cheema representing Bakhsha Singh, respondent No. 2, landowner has supported the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Naib Tehsildar Agrarian representing the State has, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the above contentions and has drawn attention to the well reasoned and detailed orders of the learned Collector and Commissioner who have dealt with all the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

I have weighed the pleadings of the parties. I find no reason to differ with the observations made by the Subordinate Revenue Officers. Mutation No. 968, in favour of the petitioners claiming themselves as transferees from Smt. Kartar Kaur under a Will dated 23.1.1969 was itself sanctioned on 3.4.1980, when the case was pending before the Collector Agrarian, and as such they were not the necessary parties to be heard in the surplus area case of Bakhsha Singh, decided by him on 9.6.1980. The view that the transferees in this case cannot be deemed to be necessary parties is amply supported by the provisions of law as contained in rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. Rule 6 of Rules, 1956 ibid dealing with the assessment of surplus area with landowners and tenants is reproduced below to make this position clear:

6(1) Every patwari shall prepare, in duplicate, statement in Forms D and DD for every landowner and tenant, respectively, who owns or holds land in excess of the permissible area in his circle and shall retain one copy of each such form himself and forward the other to the circle kanungo.

(2) The circle kanungo shall personal after examination attest all entries made by the patwari in Form D or Form DD and forward it to the circle revenue officer.

(3) The circle revenue officer shall, after holding such enquiry as he thinks; fit and after giving the persons concerned, an opportunity of being heard, forward his report to the Collector.

A person cannot be deemed to be a person concerned simply because he claims to be a transferee. Necessary parties to be heard are, indeed, those whose names are mentioned in Form `D'' and in the revenue record. In this view of the matter, I am also supported by the ruling reported in 1980 P.L.J. 525 Re: Chanan Mal Newar and others v. State of Haryana and others.

There is also no force in the plea taken by the counsel for the petitioners that the surplus area case of the petitioner should have been dealt with under the provisions of new Act, 1972 ibid. The provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 have been repealed only to the extent which are inconsistent with the provisions of new Act, 1972 as will be clear from Section 28 of the Act, 1972 ibid. Surplus area in this case was determined in 1958 under the old Act, 1953 and subsequent proceedings are a mere extension of the proceedings taken under that Act. There is no proceeding in this case taken under the new Act, 1972 which should entitle the petitioner to reopen the surplus area already determined finally under the provisions of the previous Act, 1953.

For the reasons given above, there is no valid ground justifying my interference in this case, keeping particularly the concurrent findings on the points of facts and law of the subordinate revenue officers. The revision petition is accordingly rejected.

Announced.