The State of Punjab and Others vs Shamsher Singh and Others

Mehar Singh, J.—The holding of Angrez Singh respondent was 130 standard acres and 1/4 unit in his village Bhatgaon Dungran, alias Rattan Garh, in Sonepat Tehsil of Rohtak District. This total area was split up by him into three lots between August 15, 1947 and April 15, 1953, whereby he made a gift of 43 standard acres and 13 1/2 units to his son Ranbir Singh, respondent, and 43 standard acres and 1/2 unit to his wife Bholi, respondent, leaving with himself 43 standard acres and 2 1/4 units of land. The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (Punjab Act 10 of 1953), came into force on April 15, 1953; and the transfers were made by Angrez Singh respondent in the name of his son and his wife before the coming into force of the Act, which therefore, does not effect those transfers.

Subsequently on June 1, and 20, 1956, and June 26, 1958, those three respondents, namely, Angrez Singh, his son Ranbir Singh, and his wife Bholi, sold various areas of land with them to third persons, which sales were pre-empted by Shamsher Singh and Jangbir Singh, respondents, grand nephews of Angrez Singh respondent, and in consequence of the pre-emption decrees those two pre-emptors took possession of the lands sold by the other three respondents as named above.

On July 18, 1960, appellant 3, Assistant Collector First Grade of Sonepat, under the provisions of the Act declared 13 standard acres and 2 1/2 units, 13 standard acres and 13 1/2 units, and 13 standard acres and 1/4 units, of agricultural land as surplus respectively from Angrez Singh, Ranbir Singh and Bholi, respondents, but as the sales which had been pre-empted by Shamsher Singh and Jangbir Singh respondents, were after the coming into force of the Act and thus were not effected for the purposes of utilization of the surplus area of the vendors-respondents, appellant 3 declared those areas with Shamsher Singh and Jangbir Singh, respondents, as surplus. Those two respondents failed in appeal and revision and came in writ petitions to this Court challenging the orders of the authorities under the Act.

On May 14, 1962, a learned Single Judge following his earlier decision in Bhalle Ram v. The State of Punjab (1962) 64 PLR 331, allowed the writ petitions of respondents Shamsher Singh and Jangbir Singh, quashing the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner. Against the judgment of the learned Judge, the State of Punjab, the Commissioner of Ambala Division and the Assistant Collector 1st Grade of Sonepat, appellants 1 to 3, filed three appeals under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Those are L.P. As Nos. 254, 256 and 257 of 1962. The reason why three appeals have been filed by the appellants is that there were three separate orders by the learned Single Judge, deciding the same point with regard to the three sales made by respondents Angrez Singh, Ranbir Singh and Bholi, the lands of which, on successful pre-emption suits, came into the possession of Shamsher Singh and Jangbir Singh respondents, who, therefore, filed three separate writ petitions challenging the orders of the appellants declaring surplus area with each one of the three vendors-respondents. One of those appeals, which is L.P.A. No. 256 of 1962, arising out of C.W. 281 of 1961, was heard by a Division Bench consisting of Dulat and Grover JJ., and on May 7, 1963,the learned Judges reversed the decision of the learned Single Judge and remitted C.W. 281 of 1961 to the learned Single Judge for disposal of the other questions arising in the petition on merits. The reason why the learned Judges reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judgewas that after the decision in Bhille Ram v. The State of Punjab (1962) 64 PLR 331, there was an amendment of the Act by the Punjab Security of Land Tenures (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1962 (Punjab Act 14 of 1962), in which section 4 has amended section 10A of the Act. and in that manner has taken away the basis of the judgment in Bhulle Ram''s case. This argument prevailed with the learned Judges and they reversed that decision. The learned Single Judge had quashed the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner in C.Ws. Nos. 281 and 283 of 1961, out of which L.P.As. Nos. 254 and 257 of 1962 have arisen, following his earlier decision in Bhalle Ram''s case, and as the learned Judges reversed that Judgment, so in L.P.A. No. 256 of 1982 they reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge in C.W. No. 281 of 1961.

When C.Ws. Nos. 281, 282 and 283 of 1961 are compared, each one is a copy of the other two to the last word, and it bad to be so because Shamsher Singh and Jangbir Singh, respondents, have challenged the validity of the orders of the appellants under the provisions of the Act with regard to each one of the three pieces of land which they obtained under three pre-emption decrees following upon the three sales by Angrez Singh, Ranbir Singh and Bholi, respondents. It is obvious that the decision in these two appeals, Nos. 254 and 257 of 1962 has to be according to the decision in appeal No. 256 of 1962.

The learned counsel for Shamsher Singh and Jangbir Singh, respondents, however, refers to Mota Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab (1964) 43 L.L.T. 9 and contends that the lands having been sold by Angrez Singh, Ranbir Singh, and Bholi, respondents, the surplus area should come out of the permissible area with each one of those respondents and not from the land that has come to them on pre-emption in consequence of sales effected by those three respondents. In that case Grover J. has followed a Division Bench decision, to which I was a party, in Gobind Singh V. Punjab State (1963) 65 P.L.R. 105. In the last mentioned case, three cases decided by the Financial Commissioners Pirtha Singh v. The Punjab State (1961) 40 L.L.T. 63 Hira Singh v. The State (1961) 40 L.L.T. 37 and Sapooran Singh v. The Punjab State (1962) 41 L.L.T. 30 were considered and it was held that the decision in the last mentioned two cases, that is to say, Hira Singh''s case and Sapooran Singh''s case, was the correct decision to the effect that the Act does not invalidate alienations of an area from the holding of a land-owner in which there is subsequently found to be surplus area, and all that it does is to provide in section 10A that the total holding of the land-owner, ignoring the alienation or alienations, will be taken into consideration for determination of permissible area and surplus area. There is nothing in the Act which deprived the land-owner of his right to dispose of any part of his holding simply because subsequently it may be found that part of his holding comes to be surplus area. In Pirtha Singh''s case (1961) 40 L.L.T. 63 the learned Financial Commissioner had taken a contrary view and against his own judgment in Hira Singh''s case (1961) 40 L.L.T. 37. We approved the Financial Commissioners'' decisions in Hira Singh''s (1961) 40 L.L.T. 37 and Sapooran Singh''s cases (1962) 41 L.L.T. 30 but distinguished Pirtha Singh''s case (1961) 40 L.L.T. 63 on the ground that in that case the learned Financial Commissioner proceeded on the basis that the land owner had sold the land ''without obviously disclosing that some of his land would be declared surplus area including that sold'', and we consider that in this approach the learned Financial Commissioner probably was of the opinion that some kind of misrepresentation or fraud had been practised on the alienee. We noted that the judgment of the learned Financial Commissioner did not say that such a misrepresentation was pointed out by the alienee or that there was any evidence in support of it. We, therefore, attempted a reconciliation of the cases of inconsistent decisions in Hira Singh''s case (1961) 40 L.L.T. 37 and Pirtha Singh''s case (1961) 40 L.L.T. 63 on the ground that the learned Financial Commissioner found in the latter case that the dealing was unfair and in equitable inasmuch as the land-owner in that case did not disclose the facts which the learned Financial Commissioner thought ought to have been disclosed to the alienee. It was, therefore, that on facts we distinguished Pirtha Singh''s case (1961) 40 L.L.T. 63 from the case of Hira Singh (1961) 40 L.L.T. 37 and Sapooran Singh (1962) 41 L.L.T. 30 All the three cases were cited before the learned Judge in Mota Singh''s case (1964) 43 L.L.T. 9 and it was contended that the Division Bench in Gobind Singh''s case (1964) 43 L.L.T. 9 having accepted the ratio in Hira Singh''s (1961) 40 L.L.T. 37 and Sapooran Singh''s (1962) 41 L.L.T. 30 cases had not accepted the correctness of the decision in Pirtha Singh''s case (1961) 40 L.L.T. 63. The opposite side argued that the Division Bench did not overrule the decision in Pirtha Singh''s case (1961) 40 L.L.T. 63. The learned Judge proceeded to observe that "it seems to me that so far as Mota Singh''s petition is concerned that cannot succeed and must be dismissed because in the Bench decision itself the Financial Commissioner''s view was not set a side, although the whole question came up for consideration. It may be that the other observations of the Bench that there should be a clear allegation of misrepresentation, fraud or deceit have to be borne in mind but at the same time it is not possible to lose sight of the fact that the Bench did not consider that Pirtha Singh v. The Punjab State (1961) 40 L.L.T. 63 was decided erroneously on its facts." It is this part of the observation of the learned Judge that the learned counsel for Shamsher Singh and Jangbir Singh, respondents, relies upon. With all respect to the learned Judge, when at the time of decision of Gobind Singh''s case (1963) 65 P.L.R. 105 we considered Pirtha Singh''s case (1961) 40 L.L.T. 63 we considered that case as a precedent and we neither decided nor had the right to decide any question of fact in that case. We could not say that the finding of fact in Pirtha Singh''s case (1961) 40 L.L.T. 63 was right or wrong because that case was not before us for hearing on merits. It was a case cited before us as a precedent and we found that the same learned Financial Commissioner had given an inconsistent decision in Hira Singh''s case (1961) 40 L.L.T. 37 which was followed by another learned Financial Commissioner in Sapooran Singh''s case (1962) 41 L.L.T. 30. On review of the argument we came to the conclusion that the decisions of the Financial Commissioners in Hira Singh''s case (1961) 40 L.L.T. 37 and Sapooran Singh''s case were the correct decisions, and it follows that the decision in Pinha Singh''s case (1961) 40 L.L.T. 63 could not be correct, except on the facts upon which the learned Financial Commissioner proceeded in that case, but we did not, and, as I have said, we could not give a decision on facts in Pirtha Singh''s case (1961) 40 L.L.T. 63 while deciding Gobind Singh''s case (1963) 65 P.L.R. 105 It has been necessary to make this clear because the report in Mota Singh''s case (1964) 43 L.L.T. 9 is likely to lead to a wrong impression that the Division Bench in Gobind Singh''s case (1963) 65 P.L.R. 105 did not dissent from the decision in Pirtha Singh''s case (1961) 40 L.L.T. 63 it in fact did, but it did not consider it necessary to say that Pirtha Singh''s case (1961) 40 L.L.T. 63 was wrongly decided because certain questions of fact were involved in it, and it could not give decision in Gobind Singh''s case (1961) 40 L.L.T. 37 affecting the decision in Pirtha Singh''s case (1961) 40 L.L.T. 63 In so far as the question of law decided by the cases of Pirtha Singh (1961) 40 L.L.T. 63 Hira Singh (1961) 40 L.L.T. 37 and Sapooran Singh (1962) 41 L.L.T. 30 is concerned, we left no manner of doubt in Gobind Singh''s case (1963) 65 P.L.R. 105 that we were of the opinion that the decisions in Hira Singh''s case (1961) 40 L.L.T. 37 and Sapooran Singh''s case (1962) 41 L.L.T. 30 are correct decisions and not so in Pirtha Singh''s case (1961) 40 L.L.T. 63. I have stated this again for the sake of clarity. Nothing turns on this argument of the learned counsel for Shamsher Singh and Jangbir Singh, respondents.

In the end the learned counsel on both sides are agreed that in these two Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 254 and 257 of 1962 the order must be consistent with the decision of the learned Judges of the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 256 of 1962, decided on May 7,1963. On this approach the two judgments under appeal of the learned Single Judge are reversed, and each one of the two writ petitions Nos. 282 and 283 of 1981 are sent back to the learned Single Judge for disposal of the other questions involved in the same. There is no order in regard to costs.

P.C. Pandit, J.

I agree.