VIR Singh vs The State of Punjab and others

P.C. Jain, J.—This order of mine will disopse of Civil Writs Nos. 1411, 1650 and 1650 of 1965, as similar questions of law and fact are involved in these petitions

Vir Singh has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Consti- tution of India, for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direc- tion, quashing the orders of the Collector, the Additional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, dated 14th September, 1962, 6th Dece- mber, 1963, and 28th April, 1965 (Annexures ''A'', ''B'' and ''C'') respective- ly.

The relevant facts with which we are concerned, are that the Collector, Respondent No. 4, declared an area measuring 30.31 Ordinary Acres equal to 9.45 Standard Acres of the Petitioner''s land as surplus, allowing him to retain 60 Ordinary Acres. The form ''F'' was served on the Petitioner on 5th January, 1963. Thereafter on 7th January, 1963. the Petitioner applied for the copy of the order of the Collector which was ready for delivery on 19th January, 1963. After the receipt of the copy, the Petitioner filed an appeal on 21st February, 1963, before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala. The appeal was rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Ambala Division, on 6th December, 1963 holding it to be time-barred. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Additional Commissioner, a revision was preferred by the Petitioner u/s 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (here- inafter referred to as the Act), read with Section 81 of the Punjab Ten- ancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act). The Financial Commissioner upheld the order of the Additional Commissioner and held that the appeal before the Additional Commissioner was time-barred. On merits too no ground was found by the learned Financial Commissioner Civil Writ No. 1411 of 1965 for interference. Accordingly the revision was rejected on 28th April, 1965(sic) (copy Annexure ''C'' to the petition). It is these orders of the app-lopnate(sic) authorities, the legality of which has been challenged by the Petitioner on the- grounds stated in the petition.

In the return filed by Shri Adhiapak Singh, Under Secretary to Government, Haryana, Revenue D partment, on behalf of Respondents, the material allegations made in the petition have been contro-verteo and it has been asserted that the impugned orders are perfectly legal and within jurisdiction.

Mr. D S. Nehra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contends that the appeal before the Additional Commissioner, was within limtation Reliance in support of his contention is placed on sub rules 6, 7 and 8 ot Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 Thereinafter referred to as the Rules) which read

as under:-

(6) In the case of a land-owner or tenant who has furnished his Forms to the Collector under rules 3 and 4, the Collector snail, after giving the land-lord or tenant an opportunity of being heard and alter such enquiry, as he thinks fit, assess his surplus area. In doing so, he shall hear any objections made by the land-owner or tentant, and in the written order decide such objections. In case no objections are made or the person affected does not appear, the fact shall be stated in the order.

(7) (i) The Collector or the Special Collector shall prepare a statement in form F and forward immediately a copy thereof to the land-lord or tenant concerned under cover of an endorsement prescribed in the Form and it shall be served upon the land owner or tenant as if it were a summons in the manner prescribed in section 90 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.

(ii) The special Collector shall also forward a copy of Form F prescribed by him to the Collector of every district in which the surplus area of the land owner or tenant is situate.

(8) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Collector or the Special Collector may, within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision to such person, to be computed after excluding the time spent in obtaining a copy of such decision, appeal to-

(a) the Commissioner of the Division where the person resides, in case the person resides in Ambala and Jullundur Division;

(b) the Commissioner of the Division where the largest portion of the holding of the person is situate, in case the person resides outside Ambala and Jullundur Division ;

and the decision of the Commissioner which shall be duly communicated by the Commissioner to the Collector or Collectors concerned shall be final.

It is not disputed by the learned Advocate General that from the date on which form ''F'' was served on the Petitioner, the appeal before the Additional Commissioner was within limitation. The short question that requires determination in this case is whether the limitation is to start from the date when the objections are decided and an order is passed under Sub-rule (6) by the Collector or from the date when form ''F'' is actually served on a rightholder under Sub-rule (7). Sub-rule (6) prescribes the procedure which Las to be followed by the Collector before declaring the surplus area of a land-owner. The requirement of this rule is that after a land-owner or a tenant has furnished his form, he (Collector) shall after affording an opportunity of hearing to the land-owner or the tenant, as the case may be, and after making such enquiry as he deems fit, shall assess the surplus area. Before assessing the surplus area the Collector is required to hear objections, if any, made by the landowner or the tenant and thereafter has to pass an order in writting deciding those objections Under Sub-rule (7), it is prescribed that a statement shall be prepared by the Collector or the Special Collector in form ''F'', a copy of which shall be forwarded to the landowner or the tenant concerned under cover of an endorsement in the prescribed form and its service shall be effected on the land-owner or the tenant, as the case may be, as if it were a summons in the manner prescribed u/s 90 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. Sub-rule (8) prescribes the method of filing appeal and the period of limitation, What is mentioned in this sub-rule is that any person aggrieved from a decision of the Collector or the Special Collector, may within sixty days, from the date of communication of the decision to such person, file appeal before the prescribed authority mentioned therein. In support of his contention great stress is laid by the learned Counsel on the words "from the date of communication of the decision to such person." The decision, according to the learned Counsel, is incorporated in form ''F'' and it is only after the service of form ''F'' that a land-owner comes to know as to which area has been left with him as permissible area and what area has been declared surplus. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, I am of the view that there is considerable force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The combined reading of sub-rules (6), (7) and (8) clearly indicates that the limitation is to start from the date of the communication of the decision and how that communication is made, is by service of form ''F'' on the land-owner. As prescribed under Sub-rule (6), the area is declared surplus after going into the objections which may be preferred by the land-owner or the tenant and thereafter under Sub-rule (7) an imperative duty is cast on the Collector or the Special Collector to prepare a statement in form ''F'' and forward it immediately for service on the land-owner or the tenant. The purpose of serving this form on the land-owner or the tenant is to let him know the actual decision of the Collector giving a detailed statement as to what area has been declared surplus and which area has been left at his (land-owner''s or tenant''s) permissible area. The order passed under Sub-rule (6) together with the statement in form ''F'' constitute the actual decision of the Collector affecting a landowner or a tenant. It is after the service of form ''F'' that the person concerned knows his actual position and the decision made against him. It is for this reason that the framers of the rule have made it imperative that the landowner or the tenant concerned should be served with form ''F'' as given in Sub-rule (70(sic)). The provision regarding the filing of appeal in Sub-rule (8) appears to have been purposely enacted in sequence after sub-rules 6 and 7 so that the decision appealed from may be deemed to have been communicated to him after the service of form ''F''. If it had been otherwise then in Sub-rule (8) the language used would have been from the date of the order'' and not ''from the date of the communication of the decision''. In my view it would not make the slightest difference if a person concerned is present when the order is passed under Sub-rule (6). His right to appeal accrues only when form ''F'' is served on him. In this view of the matter the only conclusion that can be arrived at, is that the limitation for an appeal under Sub-rule (8) is to start not from the date on which the order is passed by the Collector but from the date on which form F'' is served on the land-owner or the tenant, as the case may be. Accordingly the decision of the Additional Commissioner and that of the Financial Commissioner on the question of limitation cannot be upheld and are accordingly set aside.

The next question that arises for consideration is whether on merits any case has been made out by the Petitioner. The Additional Commissioner did not go into the merits, but the Financial Commissioner has considered the merits of the case and after going into the details has come to the conclusion that no case had been made out for interfe-rence on merits either. No ground has been made out by the learned Counsel for has any material been placed before me on the basis of which it could be held that any injustice had been caused to the Petitioner or that he had suffered any loss: he is entitled only to 60 Ordinary Acres and has got that area and the remaining area of his holding has to be declared surplus. In my view, on merits, the decision of the learned Financial Commissioner is unassailable and there being no error apparrent on the face of the record, cannot be interfered with in these writ proceedings. In this situation, in spite of the fact that on the question of limitation I have taken a different view from the one taken by the authorities below, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned Financial Commissioner to remand the case to the Additional Commissioner for redecision on merits.

No other point is urged-

For the reasons recorded above these petitions fail and are dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.