An order declaring the area to be surplus, passed before the 1st November, 1966 will continue to have effect after that date, even if that order had not been implemented and the surplus area so declared had not in fact been utilised by the Government.

Headnote:
PUNJAB SECURITY OF LAND TENURES ACT - [SECTION 6(3), 6(5), 6(6), 9(1)(i), 10-A(a), 10-A(b), 10-B] - REORGANISATION ACT - [SECTION 88, 89] - HARYANA ADAPTATION OF LAWS (STATE AND CONCURRENT SUBJECTS) ORDER - [CLAUSE 2(b), 10, 11] - SURPLUS AREA - NOTICE TO TRANSFEREES - REORGANISATION OF STATE - PERMISSIBLE AREA - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - LEGAL PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved four connected Civil Writ Petitions challenging the orders declaring certain land as surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The main issues were whether the landowners could claim permissible area in each of the two States of Punjab and Haryana after the reorganisation of the State of Punjab, and whether the transferees of the land were entitled to notice and hearing in proceedings for determination of the surplus area.
Finding of the Court:

1. The landowners were not entitled to claim their permissible area in each of the two States of Punjab and Haryana as they now exist. 2. The transferees were not entitled to any hearing and notice.
Issues: 1. Whether after the reorganisation of the State of Punjab, the landowner owning the land in the States of Punjab and Haryana could claim that they should be allowed the permissible area in both the States separately and the order declaring the area surplus prior to 1st November, 1966, which has not been utilised so far should be deemed to have no effect. 2. Whether under Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956, the transferees of the land are entitled to a notice and hearing in proceedings for determination of the surplus area.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The entire holding of a person on 15th April, 1953 has to be taken into consideration for determining his surplus area. 2. The order declaring the surplus area had become final under the Act before the reorganisation of the State of Punjab, the same would be given effect to and the surplus area utilised by the Government under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act after 1st November, 1966, since no change in law had been effected. 3. The Haryana Adaptation of Laws (State and Concurrent Subjects) Order, 1968 did not affect the previous operation of or anything duly done or suffered under any existing State law or any right, privilege, obligation, or liability already acquired, accrued or incurred under any such law, or any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence already committed against any such law.
Final Decision: All the four Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed.

Judgment

Sandhawalia, J.

1. For the limited purpose of this referring order, the facts are in a narrow compass. Four connected Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 2775, 693, 1284 and 1285 of 1966 came for decision before Tuli, J. As common questions of law arose, these were disposed of by a Single Judgment against which the present four Letters Patent Appeals are directed.

2. The first question of law considered was whether after the reorganisation of the State of Punjab, the landowner owning the land in the States of Punjab and Haryana could claim that they should be allowed the permissible area in both the States separately and the order declaring the area surplus prior to 1st November, 1966, which has not been utilised so far should be deemed to have no effect. The second question agitated in Civil Writ No. 2775 of 1966 was whether under Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956, the transferees of the land are entitled to a notice and hearing in proceedings for determination of the surplus area. The learned Single Judge held that the petitioners were not entitled to claim their permissible area in each of the two States of Punjab and Haryana as they now exist. regarding the second point it was held that the transferees were not entitled to any hearing and notice.

3. On behalf of the appellants, as regards the second contention regarding the right of the transferees to notice and a hearing primary reliance is placed on sub-clauses (3),(5) and (6) of Rule 6 of the Rules. These are in the following terms :-

"6(3) The circle revenue officer shall, after holding such enquiry as he thinks fit and after giving the persons concerned, an opportunity of being heard, forward his report to the Collector. (5) In the case of a landowner or tenant who has furnished his Forms to the Special Collector under Rules 3 and 4, the Special Collector shall after giving the landlord or tenant an opportunity of being heard and after such enquiry as he thinks fit, assess his surplus area. In doing so he shall hear any objections made by the landowner or tenant, and in a 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. (6) In the case of a landowner or tenant who has furnished his Forms to the Collector under Rules 3 and 4, the Collector shall, after giving the landlord or tenant an opportunity of being heard and after such enquiry as he thinks fit, assess his surplus area. In doing so he shall hear any objections made by the landowner or tenant, and in a 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."

Relying on the above-said provisions, it is first contended on the basis of authority that as many as four earlier decisions of this Court holding that the transferees were entitled to a notice and a hearing were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge and were, therefore, not considered by him in arriving at a decision on this point. Reference in this context is made to Ghamandi Lal V/s. The State of Punjab, 1965 Pun LJ 24 and Indraj Singh V/s. State of Punjab, 1965 Pun LJ 66 wherein Shamsher Bahadur, J., in construing Rule 6 above-said held that notice to the transferees was necessary. Two decisions of Narula, J., being Smt. Pari V/s. State of Punjab, 1966 Lah LT 176 and Bhool Chand v. State of Punjab, 1966 Lah LT 31 have similarly held in the clearest terms that the transferees of land are entitled to a notice and hearing in Rule 6 of the Rules. In Smt. Paris case, Narula, J., interpreted Rule 6 in conjunction with the Form D prepared thereunder and categorically observed as follows :-

"This rule further requires that in doing so, he is bound to hear the landowner or the tenant and has to decide those objections by a written order. A further safeguard is provided in the rule to the effect that even in a case where no objections

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1970 Supreme(P&H) 206

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURTP.C.Pandit, S.S.Sandhawalia and Man Mohan Singh Gujral JJ.S.Balwant Singh ChopraVersusUnion Of IndiaLetter Patent Appeal No. 541 of 1968,Decided On : NOVEMBER 20, 1970

An order declaring the area to be surplus, passed before the 1st November, 1966 will continue to have effect after that date, even if that order had not been implemented and the surplus area so declared had not in fact been utilised by the Government.

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
P.C.Pandit, S.S.Sandhawalia and Man Mohan Singh Gujral JJ.
S.Balwant Singh Chopra
Versus
Union Of India
Letter Patent Appeal No. 541 of 1968,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 20, 1970