The Nazool Land Co-operatlve Societies Scheduled Castes Ltd. vs The State of Punjab and Others

S.P. Goyal, J.—The Petitioner is a co-operative society of the Scheduled Caste residents of village Raidhrana, district Sangrur. In this village Nazool land measuring 601 bighas, 14 biswas was available for allotment in accordance with Nazool Land (Transfer) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter called the Rules). The Petitioner-society made an application to the Deputy Commissioner for its allotment and the same was accordingly allotted to the Society and its possession was ordered to be delivered on July 20, 1956. However in pursuance of that order the possession of land measuring 37 bighas, 1 biswa which is now in dispute could not be transferred as it was stated to be in possession of Arjan Singh etc. who claimed themselves to be heirs of Mattu, deceased, the original owner of this land. The claim of Arjan Singh etc. was ultimately negatived by the Assistant Collector and the land in dispute was declared to be Nazool land on May 3, 1963. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner leased out this property for the year 1963-64 but after the lapse of that period it was taken possession of by the Petitioner society who continued to be in its possession till the year 1966-67. For the year 1967-68 this land was leased out to the society for one year and then to one Shera for the year 1968-69. On July 2, 1969, the Deputy Commissioner allotted this land to Sher Singh and Bir Singh Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in accordance with the amendment brought about in the Rules vide Notification No. 5261-JN-(II)-67/-3559, dated July 26, 1967. Aggrieved thereby the Society has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the allotment in favour of Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 claiming themselves to be its owners.

The petition has been contested by the State and the private Respondents Nos. 4 and 5. The defence set up is that as the land was not declared Nazool in the year 1956, the order of allotment of this land in favour of the Petitioner-society passed by the Deputy Commissioner could not relate to this land. This contention is based on the order of the Assistant Collector passed on May 3, 1963 whereby the claim of Arjan Singh etc. was rejected and the land was declared to have escheated to the State. The plea is obviously misconceived-The land escheated to the State on the death of Mattu, its owner and not on the date when the claim of Arjan Singh etc. was rejected by the Assistant Collector. The land in dispute, therefore, stood transferred to the Society in the year 1956 even though its possession could not be delivered to it because of the claim set up by Arjan Singh etc. Once the claim of the said persons has been rejected the land would be deemed to have been escheated to the State on the date Mattu died. Once it is held that the land had been lawfully transferred to the Society under the Rules, the Society became its lawful owner on payment of its price as determined by the competent authority. The defence set up that the land in dispute was never allotted to the Society, therefore, has no basis. As the Society had become its owner prior to the amendment brought about in the Rules in the year 1967, the amendment had no effect on the rights of the Society. Moreover, even the amended Rules would not be attracted to the present case as admittedly Nazool land available in the village was much more than 10 acres.

In view of the above finding this petition is allowed with costs and the impugned order of allotment of the land in dispute in favour of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 quashed.