Makhan Singh vs State of Punjab and others

D.V. Sehgal, J.

Civil Writ Petitions No. 1023, 1253, 1254, 1255, 1258, 1483, 1484 and 1485 of 1979 shall be disposed of by this common judgment as similar facts and identical question of law are involved in all these petitions.

Take the facts from C.W.P. No. 1023 of 1979, Makhan Singh petitioner purchased 64 kanals of land from the Central Government through auction held in the month of March, 1967. Sale certificate dated 23.3.1969 Annexure P.1 was issued on behalf of the Central Government in his favour. In accordance with its terms, he paid the entire consideration money by instalments by the year 1970. Possession of the land was delivered to him on 19.5.1967 and an entry to this effect was made in the roznamcha of the Patwari. Mutation No. 280 Annexure P.2 was also sanctioned in his favour pertaining to the said land on 7.4.1972. It is averred in the petition that he gave the land on lease to Brig. Sant Singh in the year 1967. In the Jamabandi Annexure P.3 while the petitioner is recorded as the owner of the land in dispute Brig. Sant Singh is recorded as its tenant in cultivating possession. He has been paying land revenue which is evidenced by the receipt Annexure P.4. On coming into force of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter called `the Act''), his tenant Brig. Sant Singh filed a return giving his total holding. Besides the land actually owned by Brig. Sant Singh, he included in the return the land under his tenancy which in fact is owned by the petitioner. The Collector Land Reforms vide order dated 9.6.1976 and a subsequent order dated 22.6.1976 Annexures P.5 and P.6 allowed reservation of permissible area in favour of Brig. Sant Singh and declared the rest of the land including that which is owned by the petitioner as surplus area in the hands of Brig. Sant Singh. The order of the Collector was affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, as also by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab vide orders dated 22.12.1976 and 1.3.1979 Annexures P.7 and P.8 respectively. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders Annexures P.5 to P.8 contending that he is the real owner of the land in dispute and the same could not be declared surplus in the hands of Brig. Sant Singh. It is further contended that before this land was declared surplus no notice was served on him by the Collector nor was he given any opportunity of hearing. The impugned orders qua him are therefore void. Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 wherein the main contention raised is that though the land was purchased in the name of the petitioner, he is only a Benamidar and the land in fact belongs to Brig. Sant Singh and was, therefore, rightly declared surplus in his hands. It is further submitted that since the petitioner has no interest in the land in dispute, it was not necessary to serve any notice on him and the impugned orders are, therefore, valid and binding.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The sale deed Annexure P.1, the mutation Annexure P.2, Jamabandi Annexure P.3 and the receipt Annexure P.4 clearly show that the petitioner is the owner of the land in dispute. He could not be held to be a Benamidar for Brig. Sant Singh and the holding which stands in the revenue record in his name could not be declared surplus in the hands of Brig. Sant Singh without giving him due notice and affording him opportunity of hearing. The matter is now concluded by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in State of Haryana and other v. Vinod Kumar, 1986(1) PLR 222 : 1987 R.R.R. 81 wherein it has been held that the jurisdiction exercised by the authorities under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act is not of such a nature that the orders passed by them would bind the public at large. Obviously their judgments/orders are in personam. The fundamental principle as to their nature is that they only bind the parties to it or the persons named therein. If an order is passed by a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction without issuing a notice to the concerned party, the order would be a nullity and open to challenge in the civil Court even if the statute expressly bars the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain a suit to challenge the legality or validity of the order passed by such a tribunal. In view of the law thus laid down in Vinod Kumar''s case (supra), the impugned orders declaring the land, which according to the Revenue records as also the sale deed is the ownership of the petitioner could not be treated as part of the holding of Brig. Sant Singh had declared as surplus area in his hands under the Act without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Orders Annexures P.5 to P.8 are, therefore, void and a nullity qua the rights of the petitioner in the land in dispute.

I, therefore, allow these petitions with costs and quash the orders Annexures P.5 to P.8 as being null and void qua the rights of the petitioner therein. Respondents No. 1 and 2 shall, however, be at liberty to take appropriate proceedings under the Act after due service of notice on the petitioner and affording him proper opportunity of hearing before any order adverse to his interests is passed under the Act.