Kuldip Singh vs State of Punjab

C. D. Cheema, F.C.

This revision petition has been filed under section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act against the order of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar dated 10.6 1986.

Brief facts of the case are that an area measuring 10 kanals 18 marlas, situated in village Bahlolpur, was declared surplus in the hands of Baljit Singh, landowner. This area was allotted to Pritu son of Faqira and Bhagwan son of Raj Mal. Instead of giving possession of the land to allottee, Baljit Singh sold his surplus area to Sucha Singh and Sucha Singh further sold land to present petitioners.

A notice was issued to the petitioners under Section 9(1) of the Land Reforms Act, 1972 on 5.7.1985 wherein directions were issued to them to deliver possession of the land within 10 days from the service of the notice. Objections which were filed by the petitioners after limitation, were turned down and the Collector Agrarian, Phillaur ordered on 22.8.1985 that possession of land be taken under section 8 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972.

Against the above orders, Kuldip Singh and others filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, Jalandhar Division. After hearing the arguments the Ld. Commissioner opined that the petitioners had purchased surplus area land in violation of the Act and, Rules and they cannot seek any protection on that ground. The nature of the surplus area could not be changed so the appeal was dismissed on 16.6.1986. Now Kuldip Singh and others have filed the present revision petition before this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a notice under section 9(1) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 was served on the present petitioners. Meaning thereby that upto that date neither the land had been utilised nor vested in the State under section 8 of the new Act of 1972. The Ld. counsel submitted that the total land involved is only 10 kanals 8 marlas and referred to instructions issued by the State Government that the land is not to be utilised provided the sale is bonafide and vendor and vendee are not relatives. According to Ld. counsel the sale deeds are for valuable consideration. Referring to Ranjit Ram''s case 1981 PLJ 259 the Ld. counsel submitted that double benefit cannot be derived by the State. Either the surplus area be redetermined under the Act, 1972. as the land has not been utilised and the landowner had a family of 8 members out of whom 2 sons were adult on the appointed date or the land sold for valid consideration well before the appointed date be allowed to stand. In this connection the Ld. counsel referred to 1987 PLJ 420 wherein vendees had challenged the order of Collector declaring area as surplus. The Ld. counsel further submitted that the vendee stepped into the shoes of original landowner and cited 1987 PLJ 4. The Ld. counsel further cited 1984 PLJ 177 and 1984 PLJ 384 and submitted that, the purpose of the Act was to make landless people as landowners but in this case sale of only 10 kanals 8 marlas for valuable consideration is being ignored made well before the commencement of the Act, 1972, and in this way a small landowner is being made landlessdefeating the very, purpose of the Act for which it was enacted

The Ld. Senior State Counsel submitted that the land was declared surplus in the year 1960. On remand by the Commissioner, the case was decided, on 28 12.1962. This order was not challenged and attained finality. The landowner filed form ''A'' indicating the reserved area. The landowner Baljit Singh however sold the land declared surplus in the year 1968 to Sucha Singh and it was purchased by the present petitioners. According to Ld. counsel the land in dispute was declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and vested in the State. At this stage the Ld. counsel raised the question of res judicata and submitted why the landowner is not coming forward ? The vendee has no right and cited 1976 PLJ 74. According to Ld. counsel Ranjit Ram''s case is not applicable, where the landowner had agitated the matter. In view of this it was submitted that the petition be dismissed.

I have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and perused the record; This is an admitted fact that the land was declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 in the hands of original landowner Baljit Singhwho sold the surplus land to Sucha Singh who sold the same to the present petitioners. We Ld. counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments, has stated that since the land had not been utilised upto the date notice under section 9(1) was issued so it was incumbent upon the Collector to redetermine the area under the new Act 1972, and benefit of adult sons be given to original landowner who had two adult sons in a family of 8 members on the appointed date. But there is no force in these arguments as the land had been declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 well before the commencement of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. So the order of Collector Agrarian declaring surplus area attained finality and the case cannot be reopened in the guise of purchase by the present petitioners. The sale of land in dispute is clearly hit by section 10(1) of the Punjab Act, 1953 and is to be ignored. Ranjit Ram''s case is not applicable as therein the matter was being agitated by the landowner himself whereas in the present case the petitioners are vendees. The citations relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners are not applicable. The case is not covered under the Government Instructions issued on 22.7.1961, 19.7.1966 and 6.3.1967. 1 see no reason to interfere in the concurrent findings of lower Courts and the revision petition is dismissed.

Announced.