Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Ranjit Singh, J.
Thakardwara Bhagwan Narain Ji, Pandori Mahantan, Tehsil And District Gurdaspur
Versus
Financial Commissioner, Appeals-i, Punjab, Chandigarh
Civil Writ Petition No. 19981 of 2001,
Decided On : MAY 19, 2009
The surplus area declared in the hands of Mahant Ram Dass having been declared in individual capacity, thus, was termed as null and void. This order passed by the then Financial Commissioner had become final and the notices issued under Section 9(1) and the allotment in favour of the respondents was quashed. The plea accordingly was that respondent-tenants were not entitled to move application for the purchase of the land.
Fact of the Case:
The land was allotted to the respondents in village Bhagwanpura, Dhakhla, Sadana, Mehrajpur and Jattowal on 31.12.1974 after enforcement of the Reforms Act. As per the petitioner, this was done without following the proper procedure. The notices were issued under Section 9(1) of the Reforms Act to the Thakar Dwara for delivery of possession. The petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition Nos.9 of 1975 and 148 of 1975, which were allowed by this Court on 26.3.1979. The case was remanded to the Collector Agrarian for fresh decision. Collector Agrarian then vide his order dated 13.10.1980, had held that land was actually in the ownership of Thakar Dwara and not that of individual Mahant Ram Dass. The Collector further held that the Thakar Dwara was a Temple and the provisions of Section 14 of the Reforms Act were applicable and accordingly notices issued under Section 9(1) of the Reforms Act were cancelled.
Finding of the Court:
The Financial Commissioner has held that the order dated 13.10.1980 passed by the Collector is perfect and so he has set aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner. Financial Commissioner has also held that the property in dispute is owned by religious institution, i.e., petitioner Thakar Dwara. He has, thus, observed that the provisions of Section 14 of the Reforms Act will apply. Notices issued to the petitioners under Sections 9(1) and (2) of the Reforms Act were quashed. The Financial Commissioner also cancelled the allotment dated 31.12.1974 made in favour of the respondents.
Issues: 1. Whether the surplus area declared in the hands of Mahant Ram Dass could ipso-facto be taken as a surplus area with the petitioner? 2. Could the Financial Commissioner pass this order despite stay granted by this Court would be another incidental question, which may arise to test the validity of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner?
Ratio Decidendi: The surplus area declared in the hands of Mahant Ram Dass having been declared in individual capacity, thus, was termed as null and void. This order passed by the then Financial Commissioner had become final and the notices issued under Section 9(1) and the allotment in favour of the respondents was quashed. The plea accordingly was that respondent-tenants were not entitled to move application for the purchase of the land.
Final Decision: Civil Writ Petition Nos. 19981 of 2001, 1627, 2945 and 2997 of 2002 are allowed and the impugned orders, allowing the purchase applications passed by the Financial Commissioner are set-aside. For the reasons mentioned above, Civil Writ Petition Nos.15811 and 15812 of 1999 and 6911 to 6914 of 2002 are dismissed.
Ranjit Singh, J.
1. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 19981 of 2001, 1627, 2945 and 2997 of 2002 (Thakar Dwara Bhagwan Narain Ji, Pandori Mahantan & another v. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab and others). Other writ petitions listed alongwith these petitions are Nos.15811 of 1999 (Fauju v. The Financial Commissioner (Relief and Resettlement), Punjab, Chandigarh and others) and 15812 of 1999 (Bachan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner (Relief and Resettlement), Punjab, Chandigarh and others). These have been filed by respondent-tenants, challenging the order of their ejectment. Four Writ Petition Nos.6911 and 6912 of 2002 (Lali v. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab and others), 6913 and 6914 of 2002 (Harbans Singh and others v. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab and others) are those through which the tenants have challenged the order directing recovery of rent. Writ Petitions No. 2671 of 1982, 2790 of 1983, 2789 of 1983, 1151 of 1985, 1082 of 1985 and 1083 of 1985 were filed by the tenants to challenge finding given by the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner holding that Thakar Dwara Bhagwan Narain Ji, Pandori Mahantan (hereinafter referred to as "Thakur Dwara") was not the owner, with further prayer to seek permission to purchase the land under the tenancy of the petitioner therein. These writ petitions were disposed of as infructuous on 22.1.2009.
2. The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 19981 of 2001. Thakur Dwara, in this and other similar writ petitions, seeks quashing of order dated 14.5.2001, Annexure P-6, passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, Chandigarh, who had set-aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeal), Jalandhar, dated 27.2.1998 and that of the Collector, Gurdaspur dated 7.10.1991. It is pleaded that through this cryptic and non-speaking order, the applications for purchase filed by respondent Nos.2 to 19 stand illegally allowed. It is averred that Thakur Dwara is the owner of the land situated in Villages Sadana, Mahrajpur and Dakhla where respondent Nos.2 to 19 are the tenants, who are cultivating the land. Civil Writ Petition No. 2997 of 2002 is concerning the land situated in Village Bhagwanpura, where respondent Nos.2 to 5 in the said writ petition are tenants.
3. On 1.7.1958, Mahant Ram Dass filed a return under the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 (hereinafter called "the Tenures Act") before Special Collector, Punjab, Chandigarh. The land owned and held by him was then verified, which was situated in District Gurdaspur, District Hoshiarpur, District Kangra and District Una in Himachal Pradesh. Special Collector, Punjab, vide his order dated 27.7.1961, declared the area measuring 1472 standard acre and 8-3/4 units as surplus in the hands of Ram Dass Chela Braham Dass. Area of Thakar Dwara was never determined as surplus. Since the surplus area was declared in the hands of Ram Dass in his individual capacity, he moved application for correction of the revenue record on the ground that instead of Ram Dass, Thakar Dwara be declared and recorded as owner of the land in dispute. The District Collector, Gurdaspur, vide his order dated 11.6.1964 held that Thakar Dwara was the owner of the land and not Ram Dass. All proceedings held at the instance of Ram Dass were declared null and void. Even devotees of Thakar Dwara filed a civil suit for declaring the Thakar Dwara to be owner of the land and that Mahant had no right or title in respect of landed property. This suit was decreed by civil court on 1.6.1968, holding that land belonged to Thakar Dwara and not Mahant. The order passed by the District Collector and the decree dated 1.6.1968, referred to above, attained finality as these were never challenged.
4. On 31.12.1974, the land situated in Villages Bhagwanpura, Dakhla, Sadana Maharajpur, Jattowal etc. which was held to be of Thakar Dwara, was allotted to the respondents under the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
