Paramjit Singh and Others vs State of Punjab

N.K. Kapoor, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3.11.1988 dismissing the writ petition vide which appellant-the petitioners sought quashing of order passed by the respondents-authorities regarding declaration of surplus area of Natha Singh.

Natha Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants owned land exceeding the permissible limits in village Sirthala, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana. Proceedings for declaration of surplus area under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 were initiated against him. The Collector (Agrarian) vide his order dated 17.8.1960 declared 134 bighas and 7 biswas of his land as surplus. According to the appellants the area declared surplus had not been utilised under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. In the meantime Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 came into force and notice u/s 9(1) of the Act was issued to the petitioner to surrender possession of the land declared surplus i.e. in all 134 bighas and 7 biswas of land. Petitioners resisted the notice, filed objections, inter-alia pleading that long before the crucial date i.e. 30.9.1956 on 17.7.1954 Natha Singh had transferred 3/4th share of his total land to his three sons, namely, Hardayal Singh, Harpal Singh and Baldev Singh (now deceased) by an oral gift and by way of family settlement cum-partition of joint Hindu family property. Natha Singh retained only 1/4th share for himself. Appellants'' objections u/s 9(1) of the Punjab Land reforms Act were, however, rejected by the Collector (Agrarian) vide order dated 31.3.1975. Further appeal before Commissioner too met the same fate and finally the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 2.9.1979 dismissed the revision petition.

The appellants-the petitioners, thus, challenged the order passed by the Collector, Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner as per various grounds given in para 11 of the writ petition. Learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment found no ground to interfere with the orders passed by the revenue authorities and so dismissed the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that learned Single Judge appears to have been swayed by the decision of the division Bench in Nachhattar Singh and Ors. v. The Collector, Agrarian, Bhatinda and Anr. 1975 P.L.J. 8 and so dismissed the writ petition. However, according to the counsel this decision infact had been reversed by the Full Bench judgment in Ranjit Rant v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and others (1981)83 P.L.R. 492 (F.B.), which has also been affirmed by the apex Court in Ujjagar Singh (Dead) by L.R.s. v. The Collector Bhatinda and another 1996 P.L.J. 505 and so on this short ground alone the appeal merits acceptance. Counsel further argued that the possession of land declared surplus under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act had not been taken by the State Government till the Punjab Land Reforms Act came into force on 2.4.1973. This being so, it was incumbent upon the authorities to initiate fresh steps for fixing of ceiling of land owners in accordance with the provisions of Punjab Land Reforms Act i.e. as Natha Singh had three adult units, he had a right to retain permissible area for himself and for each of his additional units, namely, for his three sons and it is only thereafter if any other area is left the same could be declared surplus and utilised under the provisions of Punjab Land Reforms Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

Natha Singh owned and held land exceeding the permissible limits as per provisions of Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. An area measuring 134 bighas and 7 biswas was declared surplus by Collector (Agrarian) vide order dated 11.6.1961. Concededly, this area was not utilised for re-settlement of tenants till the coming into force of the Punjab Land Reforms Act. Section 4 of the Act stipulates the permissible area which land owner or mortgagee with possession or tenant or partly in one capacity and partly in another can own or hold. Section 5 permits a person to select permissible area for himself and for his adult son. Section 5 further envisages furnishing of a declaration by the owner/mortgagee with possession/tenant in this regard. In case of Section 6 of the Act, Collector is required to obtain the requisite information and thereafter determine the permissible as well as the surplus area of the landowners or the tenants, as the case may be. Section 8 deals with vesting of un-utilised area in the State Government. Under this Section area declared surplus under Punjab Law or the Pepsu law, which had not been utilised till the commencement of this Act and any surplus area which may be declared under this Act is to vest in the State Government on the date on which possession thereof is taken by or on behalf of the State Government. Section 9 confers powers upon the Collector to take possession of the surplus area.

Earlier this Court in Nachhattar Singh''s case (supra) held that when surplus area of land owner had finally been determined under Punjab or Pepsu law but the land so declared surplus had not been utilised and the same has remained in possession of the owner yet the land owner has no right to have the surplus area determined afresh in accordance with Section 4 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act i.e. on the coming into force of Punjab Land Reforms Act the land owner cannot by invoking the provisions of Sections 4/5 reopen the surplus area which stood finalised.

This matter again came up for consideration before a full Bench of this Court in Ranjit Ram''s case (supra) and the Court-by a majority view held asunder;-

"..... even if the land of the landowner has been declared surplus, either under the Punjab Law or under the Pepsu Law, and if the land of landowner has not been utilized and further has not been purchased by the tenants in case of Punjab Law and if the landowner has not been dispossessed by the Government under the provisions of the Pepsu Law, he continues to be a landowner of the land and also holds the same even though his land has been declared surplus, till he is divested of its ownership by taking possession of the land u/s 8 of the Reforms Act, where it has been provided that the surplus area declared as such under the Punjab Law or the Pepsu Law, which has not been utilised till the commencement of the Reforms Act, shall on the date on which the possession thereof is taken by or on behalf of the State Government, vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances. It would thus be seen that such landowners'' surplus area shall vest in the State Government on the date of taking of possession by the State Government u/s 8 of the Reforms Act and till then the landowners are not divested of the ownership of the surplus land. Thus, if a landowner owns or holds land which is beyond the permissible area as defined Under Sections 4 and 5 of the Reforms Act, his case shall have to be processed again by the Collector and the determination of the permissible area and the surplus area has to be according to the mandate of Sections 4 and 5 of the Reforms Act.''

It was further held that Collector was duty bound while passing an order u/s 7 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act to allow permissible area for the adult son as well. This entitlement of the landowner to get permissible area for his adult son is out of the land of- the landowner held or possessed by him whether already declared surplus or not.

The apex Court in Ujjagar Singh''s case (supra) has approved the ratio of the judgment of the Full Bench in Ranjit Ram''s case (supra), thus, holding that in case the, possession of the land declared surplus under the Pepsu Act had not been taken by the State, fresh determination has to be made in respect of the aforesaid area under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act which now entitle a landowner to retain permissible area for himself and for his adult son/sons. Since in the aforesaid case possession had not been taken by the authorities under the Pepsu Act, it was incumbent upon the authorities to process, afresh the declaration submitted by Natha Singh and after allowing him the permissible area, as is envisaged by Section 4, declare such area which may be found in excess of the permissible limits and thereafter initiate the proceedings for utilising the same in terms of the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act and the Rules framed thereunder. We, accordingly, accept the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allow the writ petition. Collector shall, however, determine the permissible and surplus area of the land owner/land owners and thereafter initiate steps to take possession of the area declared surplus in terms of Section 9 of the Act.