Back
1976 Supreme(P&H) 142
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.S.Narula and D.S.Lamba JJ.
Secretary To Govt., Punjab; Revenue Deptt., Chandigarh
Versus
Jagar Singh
Letter Patent Appeal No. 680 of 1974,681 of 1974,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 3, 1976
The surplus area determined under the Punjab Law or the Pepsu Law, which had not been utilized till the commencement of the 1973 Act, vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances, and the saving specified in favor of an heir by inheritance under Section 11(5) of the 1973 Act did not apply in respect of the area determined as surplus by the Collector under Section 11(7) of the 1973 Act.
Headnote:
SURPLUS AREA - DETERMINATION - DEATH OF LANDOWNER - INHERITANCE - UTILIZATION - VESTING IN STATE GOVERNMENT - REPEAL OF PUNJAB SECURITY OF LAND TENURES ACT, 1953 AND PEPSU TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1955 - APPLICATION OF PUNJAB LAND REFORMS ACT, 1973 - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 10-A(B), 10-B, 11(5) AND 11(7) OF PUNJAB LAND REFORMS ACT, 1973.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners challenged the orders of the Collector Agrarian, Bhatinda, declaring certain land as surplus area and directing the taking of possession thereof. The petitioners claimed that the surplus area, after the death of the original owner, came to be inherited by his heirs and remained unutilized, and therefore, it had to be determined afresh in the hands of the heirs of the deceased landholder. The Collector Agrarian and the Tehsildar, Bhatinda, contended that the surplus area had been determined under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (Punjab Law) and the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (Pepsu Law), and that the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1973 (1973 Act) was not applicable.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the 1973 Act repealed the Punjab Law and the Pepsu Law, and that the provisions of the 1973 Act were applicable to the determination of surplus area. The Court interpreted Sections 10-A(b), 10-B, 11(5), and 11(7) of the 1973 Act and held that the surplus area determined under the Punjab Law or the Pepsu Law, which had not been utilized till the commencement of the 1973 Act, vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. The Court further held that the saving specified in favor of an heir by inheritance under Section 11(5) of the 1973 Act did not apply in respect of the area determined as surplus by the Collector under Section 11(7) of the 1973 Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the 1973 Act repealed the Punjab Law and the Pepsu Law? 2. Whether the provisions of the 1973 Act were applicable to the determination of surplus area? 3. Whether the surplus area determined under the Punjab Law or the Pepsu Law, which had not been utilized till the commencement of the 1973 Act, vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances? 4. Whether the saving specified in favor of an heir by inheritance under Section 11(5) of the 1973 Act applied in respect of the area determined as surplus by the Collector under Section 11(7) of the 1973 Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The 1973 Act repealed the Punjab Law and the Pepsu Law by virtue of Section 28 of the 1973 Act. 2. The provisions of the 1973 Act were applicable to the determination of surplus area, as Section 8 of the 1973 Act provided that the surplus area declared as such under the Punjab Law, the Pepsu Law, and the 1973 Act shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances. 3. The surplus area determined under the Punjab Law or the Pepsu Law, which had not been utilized till the commencement of the 1973 Act, vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances under Section 8 of the 1973 Act. 4. The saving specified in favor of an heir by inheritance under Section 11(5) of the 1973 Act did not apply in respect of the area determined as surplus by the Collector under Section 11(7) of the 1973 Act, as Section 11(7) of the 1973 Act was an express limitation on the saving provided in Section 11(5) of the 1973 Act.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed both writ petitions and upheld the orders of the Collector Agrarian, Bhatinda, declaring certain land as surplus area and directing the taking of possession thereof.
D.S.LAMBA, J.
1. These two Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 680 and 681 of 1974, which arise out of Civil Writ Petitions Nos.1871 and 1799 of 1974 respectively, will be disposed of by this common judgment because a similar law point is involved in both these appeals.
2. Letters Patent Appeal No. 680 of 1974 has been filed by the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Revenue Department and others, against the judgment of M. R. Sharma, J., dated October 16, 1974, accepting Civil Writ Petition No. 1871 of 1974 filed by Jagar Singh, Nazar Singh and Banta Singh, sons of Sunder Singh, residents of village Mahraj, Tahsil and District Bhatinda, now respondents, and quashing the orders dated March 18, 1974, and April 11, 1974, (copies Annxs. P-3 and P-4 respectively) passed by the Collector Agrarian, Bhatinda, Letters Patent Appeal No. 681 of 1974 has been filed by the Collector Agrarian, and Tehsildar, Bhatinda, against the orders of M. R. Sharma, J., of the same date, allowing Civil Writ Petn. No. 1799 of 1974, filed by Harbans Singh, Harjit Kaur, and Hardipinder Singh, now respondents, quashing the orders of the Collector Agrarian, Bhatinda, dated April 3, 1974 (copy Annexure-P-3).
3. The facts as they emerge from C. W. P. No. 1871 of 1974, are that Jagar Singh, Nazar Singh and Banta Singh thereinafter called the writ petitioners) are the sons of Sunder Singh who was landowner in the revenue estate of village Mehraj, Tehsil and District Bhatinda, and owned agricultural land measuring 60.06 standard acres on April 18, 1953, that is, on the date of enforcement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. It has been averred that Sunder Singh in his lifetime had partitioned the land in five equal shares in a family partition, which was duly entered in the Roznamcha of the Patwari and a mutation was also attested before 1953, between the three petitioners, their brother Bhaga Singh (since dead) and himself. The proceedings for the assessment of surplus area relating to the land owned by Sunder Singh had been taken up by the Collector Agrarian, Bhatinda, who by his order, dated April 24, 1959, declared Sunder Singh to be owning 29.6 standard acres as surplus area. However, on appeal the aforesaid order was set aside by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, and the case was remanded for determining surplus area afresh. Thereafter the Collector Agrarian, Bhatinda, vide his order dated March 29, 1971, declared 30.06 standard acres as surplus with Sunder Singh. Against that order Sunder Singh went in appeal before the Commissioner, but without success. His revision before the Financial Commissioner also failed, vide orders, dated December 21, 1971, and May 31, 1972, respectively. But after the decision of the appeal and the revision, no steps were taken by the Agrarian authorities to take possession of the surplus area or to settle tenants thereon, with the result that Sunder Singh continued to remain in possession of the land which was declared surplus. Sunder Singh died on May 2, 1974, and on his death the entire holding was inherited by the three writ-petitioners and their brother Bhaga Singh and thus they became owners of that land in equal shares. Bhaga Singh also died leaving behind three sons, namely, Karnail Singh, Jarnail Singh and Babu Singh. It was further asserted that in view of the death of Sunder Singh, the order declaring his land as surplus area cannot be executed since the estate of Sunder Singh deceased had vested in the writ petitioners and Bhaga Singh s sons in equal shares and, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 32-FF of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Pepsu Law), no surplus area was left with them for being utilized by the State Government. It is then stated that vide letter, dated March 13, 1974, the Collector Agrarian, Bhatinda, directed the Tahsildar Bhatinda, that the area declared surplus vide his order, dated March 29, 1971 (copy Annexure-P-1)
