Karnail Singh and others vs State of Punjab

K.S. Narang, F.C.

This is a revision petition by Karnail Singh etc., under section 24 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, against the order dated 22.5.1979 of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, whereby she dismissed their appeal against the order dated 12.3.1975 of the Collector Agrarian, Ludhiana, by which he rejected the objections filed by the petitioners against the notice served on them under section 19(1) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972.

In brief facts of the case are that Bhag Mal, a big landowner in village Dhandra, Tehsil Ludhiana, owned and held 61 standard acres and 151/2 units of land at the commencement of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The Collector, Ludhiana processed his surplus area case and after making necessary verification through the field staff, by his order dated 6.10.1959 declared 31 standard acres and 151/2 units of land as surplus in his hand after allowing him to retain 30 standard acres as his permissible area. Aggrieved by this order, the landlord filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Jullundur, who dismissed it by his order dated. 4.4.1960. The landowner, then, filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, who dismissed it on 17.1.1961. Thereafter the landonwer went up in writ petition, which was decided on 16.3.1962 by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, with the direction to the Collector to decide the case afresh in the light of the law laid down in 1962 P.L.R. 22. On remand, the Collector, Ludhiana heard the parties and declared 31 standard acres and 151/2 units of land as surplus with Bhag Mal landowner by his order, dated 18.2.1974. Thereafter, the Collector issued a notice under section 9(1) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 to surrender the possession of the surplus land to the State. Against this notice, Karnail Singh and Shingara Singh (vendees of a part of the land declared surplus with the landowner Bhag Mal) filed objections on 6.12.1974 before the Collector, Ludhiana. The Collector Agrarian, after hearing the parties and after going through the record, rejected their objections by his order dated 12.3.1975. Aggrieved by this order, Karnail Singh etc. filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala, who also dismissed it as timebarred by her order dated 22.5.1979. Against this order they have now come up in revision petition.

Main grounds urged by the petitioners (vendees) are that they had purchased the land in 1965 from the son of Bhag Mal respondent No. 2 and have been in possession of the same as owners; that the sons of Bhag Mal were recorded as owners by virtue of a decree of the Civil Court in their favour; that no notice was issued to them (vendees) despite the mutation having been sanctioned in their favour; and that the surplus area case of the landowner was decided without hearing them and that they came to know only when the notice to take the possession of the surplus land was issued to them by the Agrarian Authorities.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The surplus area case of Bhag Mal was decided on 6.10.1959 under the provisions of old Act, 1953 ibid. The matter remained under appeals revisions before the revenue officers and writ petition before the High Court. The status of the landowner Bhag Mal has been correctly determined under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 as on 15.4.1953. The transfer of land to the petitioners in 1965, being postAct transaction had absolutely no effect on the surplus area declared in 1959 and maintained subsequently by the Collector Agrarian on 18.2.1974. The petitioners (vendees) have no right to raise objections on the notice issued under section 9(1) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 to deliver possession of the surplus area. The Collector, Ludhiana, in his order dated 12.3.1975 has clarified the position stating that possession of the area declared surplus has been already taken on 28.10.1974 and mutation No. 3165 has also been sanctioned in favour of the State. The petitioners (vendees) had filed the appeal on 25.5.1975 against the order of the Collector dated 12.3.1975. The Commissioner by her order dated 22.5.1979 rightly dismissed their appeal on the point of limitation, involving unexplained delay.

I have no reason to differ with the orders of the Collector dated 18.2.1974, read with his subsequent order dated 12.3.1975 and also that of the Commissioner dated 22.5.1979 which do not warrant any interference.

For the reasons given above, the revision petition lacks force and is hereby dismissed in limine.

To be communicated.