The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for acceptance by the donee for a gift to be valid, as well as the significance of continuous possession by tenants in determining entitlement to proprietary rights.

Rupan Deol Bajaj, FC. - The present are three inter-connected revision petitions under Section 39 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 read with Section 23 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 against the order dated 26.3.1998, passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and against the order dated 29.11.1984 of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Samana in the matter of conferring of Proprietary Rights. Since all three revision petitions are inter-connected and have common facts and questions of law and have been decided by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala with his common order dated 26.3.1998, therefore, these three revision petitions are also being decided vide my single order.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Jang Singh, Mastan Singh and Baru Singh sons of Phuman Singh, made applications before the prescribed Authority for the grant of proprietary rights, in respect of the land mentioned therein. Baru Singh died during the pendency of that case as such his four sons namely. Hari Singh, Kirpal Singh, Pal Singh and Ram Singh were impleaded as L.Rs. The applicants alleged in their applications that the disputed land is under their tenancy since prior to 1956 and that the land owner is a big land owner and as such P. Rights are liable to be granted in respect of the land mentioned in the purchase application land-owner this land for his personal cutlivation. These applications were contested by the land-owners on various grounds, including the ground of reservation of the land for personal cultivation. After hearing the parties the then prescribed Authority (Assistant Collector Ist Grade) vide his order dated 9.4.1962, partly accepted the application of the respondents and partly rejected them on the ground that some of the land- owners did not have more land then their prescribed limit. Both the parties i.e. petitioners and respondents preferred appeals before the Collector, Patiala who vide his order dated 31.5.1963 accepted the appeals and remanded the case for fresh decision after examining the question of reservation. The case was taken by the Prescribed Authority again and vide its order dated 31.8.1964 the application for the grant of proprietary rights was rejected, and it was held that the gift made in 1952 by land-owner Amar Singh, father of the petitioners in their favour was valid. Against this order an appeal was again filed before the Collector, Patiala who vide order dated 17.5.1965 decided the appeal observing that the directions of the Collector given in his order dated 11.5.1963 be thoroughly looked into. These two directions were as under :-

a) Whether the area reserved by the land owner could not be more than prescribed limit under the Act ?

b) That the legality and correctness of the reservation made by the land owner needs further and fuller investigation.

3. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade again took up the matter as ordered by the Collector and vide his order dated 31.3.1966 the applications for purchase of proprietary rights by the respondents were rejected. Once again, an appeal was preferred by them. This time the Collector, Patiala vide his order dated 15.1.1976 remanded the case for the a fresh decision to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade directing him to keep in view the following two points :-

a) Whether the transaction of gift made in 1952 was a valid one ?

b) Whether the area reserved by the landlords could not be more than the limit prescribed under the Presidents Act and that the legality and correctness of the reservation made by land-owners needs further and fuller investigation ?

4. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Samana after receiving the order of the Collector, took up the matter and once again rejected the application vide his order dated 10.1.1977, and held that the respondents were not entitled to the acquisition of proprietary rights under the law.

5. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Samana also came to the conclusion that the gif