SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.G. PALEKAR, V.R. KRISHNA IYER AND R.S. SARKARIA, JJ.
Gurcharan Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
Prithi Singh and others. Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1950 of 1967, D/- 14-11-1973.
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – Section 2 (5) (2), 5-B (2), 5-B - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Punjab Security of Land Tenure Rules, 1956 - Rule 6 - Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 35 and 114 - Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 - Section 44 - Agricultural Land - Land-Owner - Surplus Area - Respondent No. 1 herein owned acres of agricultural land - Thereafter, he transferred part of his land in favour of his sons, Respondents 2 and 3 - Respondent No. 1 sold 76 Bighas and 13 Biswas of land to appellants - On same date, Respondent No. 2 sold 3 Bighas and 6 Biswas of land in same village, to appellants - A third sale was also made of 17 Bighas and 16 Biswas of land, by Respondent No. 3 in favour of appellants - Village Patwari prepared necessary statement in Form D relating to all lands held by Respondent No. 1 - In this From, he also showed appellants as transferees of a part of that area, from Respondent No. 1 - Collector made an order declaring 155 standard acres and 12-3/4 units of land as surplus area of Respondent No. 1 Against that order, appellants preferred an appeal – Held, Court find any force in contention that since sales were made, before permissible area of vendor had become fixed by voluntary reservation or selection, lands sold should have been included by Collector in permissible area of vendor in proceedings under S. 5-B (2) of Act - He has to hear parties who appear and to take into consideration their representations and then pass such order as may be just - In so exercising his discretion, Collector may, subject to adjustment of equities on both sides, include transferred area in permissible area or surplus area of land-owner - Thus, in process Collector is not to ignore altogether wishes of landowner - He may accept them to extent they are consistent with equities of case - In instant case, appellants did not furnish even particulars of purchases made by them much less did they oppose preference expressed by landowner being accepted by Collector - In circumstances there was no equity in favour of transferees - Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
SARKARIA, J.:- This appeal by certificate is directed against the order dated the 3rd August, 1966 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the appellants writ petition in limine. The facts as alleged in the writ petition are as under:
Respondent No. 1 herein owned 186 standard acres and 4 1/2 units of agricultural land at the time of the commencement of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (Act X of 1953) (hereafter called the Act), in several villages in the State of Punjab. Thereafter, he transferred part of his land in favour of his sons, Respondents 2 and 3. On March 3, 1958, Respondent No. 1 sold 76 Bighas and 13 Biswas of land situate in the area of Village Dewan Khera for Rs. 80,000/- to the appellants. On the same date, Respondent No. 2 sold 3 Bighas and 6 Biswas of land in the same village, for Rs. 4,000/- to the appellants. A third sale was also made of 17 Bighas and 16 Biswas of land, situate in Dewan Khera, by Respondent No. 3 in favour of the appellants for Rs. 16,000/-. Mutations in favour of the vendees appellants on the basis of the sales were sanctioned by the Revenue Officer concerned in 1958. Most of the area thus transferred by Respondents 1 to 3 in favour of the appellants, was on 15-4-1953 i.e. at the commencement of the Act under tenants who had no other land in any capacity in the State of Punjab. The land-owners had not made any reservation in 1953 or selection in 1958 of their permissible area. In 1964, the Circle Revenue Officer started proceedings for determination of the surplus area. The village Patwari prepared the necessary statement in Form D relating to all the lands held by Respondent No. 1, as on 15-4-1953. In this From, he also showed appellants as transferees of a part of that area, from Respondent No. 1. On 15-9-1964, the Collector made an order declaring 155 standard acres and 12-3/4 units of land as surplus area of Respondent No. 1 Against that order, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, who dismissed it on November 6, 1955. The appellants revision before the Financial Commissioner, also met the same fate on March 3, 1966.
2. On 20-6-1966, the appellants filed the writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution in the High Court impugning the aforesaid orders of the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, as being illegal and without jurisdiction, inter alia on these grounds:
(i) That no notice as required by Rule 6 of Punjab Security of Land Tenure Rules, 1956 was issued to the appellants; nor were they afforded by the Collector, an opportunity to put forth their objections against the inclusion of the lands purchased by them, in the surplus area;
(ii) That in view of the mandate in S. 2 (5) (2) of the Act, the lands purchased by the appellants, could not be included in the surplus area of Respondent No. 1, as on the crucial date i.e. 15-4-1953, these lands were in the occupation of tenants whose total holdings did not exceed the permissible limit;
(iii) That the Commissioner erred in himself calling and examining the Khasra Girdawri, and then without even examining the Patwari who had made the entries therein, in holding, on mere conjectures, that the record had been tampered with. Hearing at the appellate stage was no substitute for hearing at the original enquiry. The Commissioner ought to have remanded the case to the Collector and thus afforded the appellants an opportunity to lead evidence to "re-but" the erroneous view of the Commissioner endorsed in revision by the Financial Commissioner;
(iv) That Resondent 1 had represented that he would get the lands sold to the appellants included in his permissible area which had not been reserved or selected by him within the prescribed period. The Collector therefore should have included these lands in the permissible area of Respondent 1.
3. Mr. Manchanda, appearing on behalf of the appellants does not press grounds (i) and (iv) before us. obviously becau
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.