Karam Singh and another vs The Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh and others

Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.—Smt. Raj Kaur was a big land-owner. She owned 43 Standard Acres and 6(sic) Units of land in village Mansurwala, Tehsil Zira. District Ferozepur. The Collector declared 13 Standard Acres and 6 Units of Land in her hand as surplus vide his order dated June 13, 1963.

Oat of this surplus land 19 Standard Acres and 6 Units of land were allotted to Charan Singh and Swaran Singh sons of Bhagwan Kaur on February 1, 1964, The physical possession of the land was delivered to them.

Raj Kaur, the land owner, died on March 31, 1965 end her property was mutated in favour of her two real sisters Smt. Bhagan alias Bhagwan Kaur and Smt. Mahan Kaur on April 25, 1965. Smt. Mahan Kaur died and has beer succeeded by her son Karam Singh. Before the death of Kaj Kaur. proceedings had been taken by the competent authority for the cancellation of the allotment in favour of Charan Singh and Swaran Singh. The Collector Agrarian, Ferozepur, cancelled the allotment in their favour vide orders dated March 11, 1966, because Charan Singh and Swaran Singh being the nephews of Raj Kaur land-owner, were not eligible for allotment of the surplus area. They were not entitled to be re-settled on the surplus area of Smt. Raj Kaur.

4 After the death of Raj Kaur, as mentioned earlier, the property was inherited by Bhagwan Kaur and Mahan Kaur and on the death of Mahan Kaur by Karam Singh in her place. Both of them came to possess about 22 Standard Acres of land. Both of them were small land owners as they did not have any other land. However, on the death of Raj Kaur, the Colletor on November 30. 1966 declared 10 Standard Acres of land as surplus. He gave benefit of 3 Standard Acres and 6 Units of Land to the successors of Raj Kaur as the same had not been utilized. However, treating these 10 Standard Acres of land as having been utilized the Collector did not give the benefit of the same to the successors of Raj Kaur. The appeal filed by Karam Singh and Bbagwan Kaur to the Commissioner failed on September 5, 1969 The Financial Commissioner dismissed the revision petition filed by Karam Singh and Bhagwan Kaur on November 6, 1969.

Mr. B.N. Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has argued that Charan Singh and Swaran Singh were the nephews of Raj Kaur and as such they were not eligible for allotment of surplus area, the order of allotment in their favour was thus void ab initio For that very reason it was set aside by the Collector on March 11. 1966. So, In the eye of law the land will not be treated to have been utilized when it was allottee to wholly ineligible persons The effect it that the land shall be treated to have not been utilised under Clause (a) of Section 10. A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter called "the Act"). In view of the provisions of Section 10 B of the Act the succession having been opened en March 31, 1965 on the death of Raj Kaur, whole of her property came to Bhagwan Kaur and Mahan Kaur. Both of them were small land owners because they both did not possess mere then 27 Acres each Thus there was no land surplus in the hands of these two ladies. There is force in this contention of the learned Counsel Charan Singh and Swaran Singh were not at all eligible for the allotment of the surplus land Allotment to them was void ab initio It was no allotment in the eye of taw. The land had not been utilized for allotment to eligible persons. As such it will be deemed to have not been utilized. The allotment has been cancelled on the ground that the allottees were not eligible. This order relates back to the time of the allotment itself. The effect of the order is that Swaran Singh and Gurcharan Singh were never the lawful allotted of the Land in dispute. Consequently, the land was not utilized under Clause (a) of Section 10 A of the Act. Therefore, Section 10 B will apply to the case and the Petitioners are the owners of this land 1 hey are small land owners and no part of the land can be declared surplus. The orders dated November 30, 1956, September 5, 1969 and November 6, 1969 passed by the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, respectively are Illegal and void, and are set aside with no order as to costs.