IMPORTANT POINT
Right of re-determination of surplus land u/s 11(5) of Punjab Land Reforms Act has to be exercised within a reasonable time and cannot be exercised at any time at sweet will of applicant.

Headnote:Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972-Sections 11(5), (7) and 82(1)(b)-Order declaring 3.12 hectares of land surplus in respect of holdings of father and mother of petitioner appellant passed by Collector on 30-9-1976 by Collector-Appeal against order was dismissed on 27-3-1979-Mother of appellant petitioner died on 9-10-1980 and father of appellant applied for re-determination of surplus land u/s 11(5) of the Act on 21-6-1985-Meanwhile mutation of surplus land had been effected in favour of State in 1982 and land was allotted to third parties-Collector allowing application vide order dt. 23-7-1985 for redetermination held that there was no surplus land with applicant and mutation in favour of State Government was cancelled-Collector reviewed his order on 22-12-1986 and held applicant was in possession of surplus land-Appeal and revision were dismissed-Writ also dismissed by High Court-Appeal-Collector was competent to review his own order and limitation did not come in his way once Commissioner granted permission to Collector to review his order-Delay of 5 years in making application for re-determination was fatal and application deserved to be dismissed on that ground alone-Order dt. 23-7-1985 by Collector was non-est.
       Held : In our view the bar of limitation does not come in the way of the Collector re-determining the permissible land holding of Daya Singh. A bare reading of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 82 shows that review can be made even after expiry of period of ninety days where the Revenue Officer is satisfied about cause for delay. The fact that the Commissioner granted permission to the Collector to review his order suggests that the hurdle of limitation had been successfully crossed. (Para 4)
       In the circumstances of the case, we feel that these appeals can be decided on the basis of the fact that the initial order whereby the Collector declared 3.12 hectares of land as surplus was passed on 30th September, 1976. The appeal against the said order filed by Daya Singh, land owner, was dismissed on 27th March, 1979. Kartar Kaur wife of Daya Singh, along with whom Daya Singh had filed a joint return with respect to the lands, died on 9th October, 1980. The surplus lands were mutated in favour of the State Government in the year 1982 and the State Government allotted the same to third parties including the respondents No. 5 to 7 herein in the year 1983. Respondent No.7 has filed an affidavit stating that he is in possession of the land allotted to him. Kartar Kaur is said to have made a Will on 15th October, 1979 regarding a portion of land declared surplus in favour of a Gurudawara which has been impleaded as respondent No.8 in this appeal. On 15th October, 1979 when Kartar Kaur made her Will she was left with no interest or title in the land and therefore she could not have made a Will with respect thereto. Daya Singh filed an application for re-determination of the surplus land under Section 11(5) of the Act only on 21st June, 1985 on the basis of the fact that Kartar Kaur had died and succession had reopened. This application was made almost 5 years after the death of Kartar Kaur. In our view, this delay in making the application is fatal for Daya Singh and the application for re-determination ought to have been dismissed on this ground alone. Assuming that Daya Singh had a right to make an application under section 11(5) of the Act but the right had to be exercised within a reasonable time. It cannot be said that the right under Section 11(5) can be exercised at any time at the sweet will of the applicant. The order regarding determination of surplus land by the Collector has serious consequences:
        1. So far as the land owner is concerned he is divested of the land.
        2. The surplus land vests in the State Government.
        3. The State Government utilizes the surplus land in accordance with law which includes allotment of the surplus land to third parties like landless persons for purposes of cultivation etc. (Para 9)
       The concept of reasonable time in the given facts would be most appropriate. An application must be moved within a reasonable time. The facts of the present case demonstrate that re-determination under sub-section (5) of Section 11 almost 5 years after the death of Kartar Kaur and more than 6 years after the order of Collector declaring the land as surplus had become final, has resulted in grave injustice besides defeating the object of the legislation which was envisaged as a socially beneficial piece of legislation. Thus we hold that the application for redetermination filed by Daya Singh under sub-section (5) of Section 11 of the Act on 21st June, 1985 was liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and the Collector was wrong in re-opening the issue declaring the land as not surplus in the hands of Daya Singh and Kartar Kaur. The above reasoning is in consonance with the provision in sub-section (7) of Section 11 of the Act. Sub-section (7) uses the words "where succession is opened after the surplus area or any part thereof has been determined by the Collector....". The words "determined by the Collector" would mean that the order of the Collector has attained finality. The provisions regarding appeals etc. contained in Sections 80-82 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, as made applicable to proceedings under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, show that the maximum period of limitation in case of appeal or review is ninety days. The appeal against the final order of the Collector dated 30th September, 1976 whereby 3.12 hectares of land had been declared as surplus was dismissed on 27th March, 1979. The order was allowed to become final as it was not challenged any further. Thus the determination by the Collector became final on 27th March, 1979. The same could not be re-opened after a lapse of more than 6 years by order dated 23rd July, 1985. The subsequent proceedings before the Revenue authorities did not lie. The order dated 23rd July, 1985 is non-est. All the subsequent proceedings therefore fall through. The issue could not have been reopened. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar, J.-These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing in limine a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the revenue authorities regarding declaration of a portion of land owner by predecessor in interest of the appellant as surplus under The Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Briefly the facts are that Daya Singh, father of the petitioner filed a return regarding his and his wife Kartar Kaur s holding of lands under Section 5 of the Act. After scrutinizing the return, the Collector found that the holding in their hands came to 10.12 hectares of first quality land. Out of that they were entitled to 7 hectares of land. Thus 3.12 hectares of land was found to be surplus which the land owners were required to surrender. Daya Singh filed an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner. One of the objections taken by Daya Singh in his appeal was that the land held by his wife Kartar Kaur could not be clubbed with the land held by him. This objection was turned down by the Commissioner. It was observed that according to Section 3(4) of the Act a "family" in relation to a person means a person, wife or husband, as the case may be, of such person and his or her minor children. The appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner. Kartar Kaur wife of Daya Singh died on 9th October, 1980. In 1982, the surplus land was mutated in favour of the State Government and in 1983 it was allotted to third parties.

2. On 21st June, 1985 Daya Singh filed an application under Section 11(5) of the Act for re-determination of the land holding in view of death of Kartar Kaur. The Collector vide his order dated 23rd July, 1985 disposed of the said application holding that there was no surplus area of land with Daya Singh. The land declared surplus vide earlier order dated 30th September, 1976 was ordered to be restored to Daya Singh and the mutation in favour of the State Government was cancelled. On 19th May, 1986, the Collector sought permission from the Commissioner to review the order dated 23rd July, 1985. The Commissioner granted the requisite permission on 14th August, 1986. In view of the permission granted to him, the Collector heard the matter all over again and vide his order dated 22nd December, 1986 held that Daya Singh was in possession of surplus land. The order dated 30th September, 1976 passed by the Collector earlier declaring 3.12 hectares of first quality land as surplus was maintained and the Mutation No. 2760 vide which ownership and possession of surplus land was sanctioned in favour of the State Government was restored. Appeal filed by Daya Singh against the said order was dismissed by the Commissioner vide his order dated 11th November, 1987. On 22nd December, 1987, Daya Singh died. Revision filed by Ajmer Kaur (appellant herein) before the Financial Commissioner against the order of Commissioner was dismissed on 27th January, 1994. This order of the Financial Commissioner was challenged in the Punjab and Haryana High Court by way of a Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was however dismissed on 3rd October, 1994 permitting the petitioner to approach the Financial Commissioner by way of a Review Petition wherein she could raise all the questions sought to be raised in the Writ Petition. Thus the matter went back to the Financial Commissioner by way of Review applications. The review applications were dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 10th March, 1998. The order of the Financial Commissioner was again challenged by way of Writ Petitions filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. The Writ Petitions were again dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 30th July, 1998. The present appeals are directed against the said orders of the High Court.

3. Mr. Manoj Swarup, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised the following points in support of the appeals:

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 645

IMPORTANT POINTRight of re-determination of surplus land u/s 11(5) of Punjab Land Reforms Act has to be exercised within a reasonable time and cannot be exercised at any time at sweet will of applicant.

IMPORTANT POINT
Right of re-determination of surplus land u/s 11(5) of Punjab Land Reforms Act has to be exercised within a reasonable time and cannot be exercised at any time at sweet will of applicant.