http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: SUDARSHAN NATH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       04/04/2000

BENCH: S.S.Ahamad, Doraiswamy

JUDGMENT:

Raju, J.

     The  appellants, who are the legal representatives  of the   original   landholder  Raghubinder   Nath   and   were unsuccessful before the High Court, have come up before this Court  against the order dated 20.8.91 of the Division Bench of  the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.3062 of 1991, declining to interfere with the order dated 1.8.90 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals).  Late Raghubinder  Nath,  who was said to be a big landowner,  was governed  by  the provisions of the Punjab Security of  Land Tenures  Act,  1953  (hereinafter referred to as  ‘the  Land Tenures Act).  By a proceeding dated 30.6.60 in exercise of the  powers  of the Collector under Sections 3 and 4 of  the Land  Tenures  Act, the ceiling area of the  said  landowner came  to be determined and an extent of 3 Standard Acres and 9  Â¼  Units  were  declared as surplus.   On  31.3.76,  the Collector  Agrarian,  Gurdaspur,  after  completion  of  the consolidation  proceedings  in  the area,  passed  an  order declaring that there is no area left surplus and ordered the case   to   be  filed.   While   matter  stood   thus,   the predecessor-in-interest  of respondents 2 and 3, Late  Jagat Ram,  to whom 20 kanal and 13 marlas were said to have  been given  on  lease  even  prior  to 1953,  filed  a  suit  for declaration  that  he, being a tenant, is eligible  for  the allotment of the surplus area measuring about 56 kanal and 4 marlas  with  a  consequential direction to  the  Collector, Gurdaspur,  to allot the surplus land to him.  No doubt,  to these proceedings the landowner was not impleaded as a party but only the State, represented by the Collector, was made a party.   The  said  suit  came to  be  decreed  on  7.11.79, ex-parte.   When  the  said plaintiff  filed  the  Execution Petition  No.5  of  1980,   the  learned  Subordinate  Judge adverted  to  the fact that the legal heirs  of  Raghubinder Nath have filed an appeal against the order of the Collector and  inasmuch  as  the matter has been stayed,  the  vesting cannot  take  effect  and the allotment order could  not  be issued  at  that  stage.   On   that  view,  the   execution proceedings  were  held  to be  premature  and  consequently dismissed  on  1.11.81.   In the meanwhile, on  29.9.80  the Collector  Agrarian, Gurdaspur, passed an order declaring  3 Standard  Acres and 9 ¼ Units to be the surplus area.  This order was challenged by the original landholder on an appeal before  the  Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, but the  same came  to be dismissed on 10.2.82.  The challenge was further pursued  before  the  Financial Commissioner by means  of  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

Revision Petition.  When the above proceedings were pending, the  Collector,  Gurdaspur,  appears to  have  allotted  the surplus  land,  as declared, to Late Jagat Ram  on  24.3.82. Pursuant  to the allotment so made, on 30.3.82 Jagat Ram was said to have deposited Rs.5,900/-.

     The  revision  filed  by Raghubinder Nath  before  the Financial  Commissioner  against  the order  passed  by  the Commissioner  came  to  be  disposed of on  10.3.83  with  a direction  that the landowner should be given an opportunity of  selecting permissible area and the allottee accommodated elsewhere  on  an  equivalent  land.    In  doing  so,   the revisional  authority  was  of  the view  that  the  Revenue Officers  are bound to give an opportunity to a landowner of being heard and selecting his permissible area under Section 24-A(2)  of  the  Land   Tenures  Act,  after  consolidation proceedings,  if  the  land declared surplus  had  not  been utilised by them.  It is interesting to notice that even the revisional authority did not approve of the bona fide nature of  the  transfers  said to have been effected in  1954  and adversely  commented upon the omission to produce copies  of the  Khasra  girdawaris  for the period  subsequent  to  the execution  Sale Deed dated 2.5.54.  On 2.2.84, the  original landowner Raghubinder Nath died and the mutation was said to have been sanctioned on 16.1.86 in favour of the appellants.

     Pursuant  to  the  order dated 10.3.83 passed  by  the Financial  Commissioner, the Collector Agrarian pursued  the matter  further and by his proceedings dated 10.6.86 came to the  conclusion that the heirs of Late Raghubinder Nath were entitled  to  reserve the area for themselves in  accordance with  the  provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms  Act,  1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Land Reforms Act) and that the  total land holding of Raghubinder Nath worked out to 43 Std.   Acres  2 Units (33 Std.  Acres 9 ¼ Units plus 9 Std. Acres  8 ¼ Units sold already).         Since Raghubinder Nath died leaving  seven  legal heirs, there is no surplus  land  with them  and consequently the allotment made in favour of Jagat Ram  was not only held bad but stood cancelled and he has to be  accommodated elsewhere in terms of the directions of the Financial  Commissioner  dated 10.3.83.  The Naib  Tehsildar (Agrarian)  was directed to put up a proposal for  allotment of  alternative  land equivalent to the area to be given  to Jagat Ram.  As against the said proceedings, Jagat Ram filed an  appeal before the Commissioner.  During pendency of  the same,   Jagat   Ram   died  on   2.10.86   and   the   legal representatives  were  brought on record on  13.1.87.   This appeal  came  to be dismissed on 16.5.88 on the ground  that the  area  declared surplus did not vest in the State  under Section  8  of the Act for want of notice as required  under Section  9(1)  of the Act.  The allottee Jagat Ram was  also held  to  have  not  proved his  possession  of  the  lands. Thereupon,  the legal heirs of Jagat Ram pursued the  matter before  the Financial Commissioner by filing a revision  and his  legal heirs continued the same on account of his death. By  the proceedings dated 1.8.90, the revision petition  was allowed  and  the orders of the Commissioner  dated  16.5.88 came  to  be set aside holding that the declaration  of  the surplus  area  in the year 1960/1980 held the field and  was never  set  aside and that Jagat Ram, the  allottee,  having deposited  the  purchase amount on 30.3.82 in the  Treasury, became  the owner of the land on such deposit.  It was  also held  that in view of the death of the original landowner in the  year  1984 and the utilisation of the land even  during the  life- time of the landowner, who did not challenge  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

same  successfully, the orders of the Commissioner cannot be sustained.   Aggrieved  against  the said  proceedings,  the heirs  of  the  Raghubinder Nath approached the  High  Court unsuccessfully.  Hence, this appeal.

     The  learned counsel for the appellants placed  strong reliance  upon  the  orders dated 31.3.76  under  which  the Collector  held  that there is no area left as surplus,  the further  orders  dated  10.3.83   passed  by  the  Financial Commissioner  holding that the landholder should be given an opportunity  to  select the permissible area and the  tenant Jagat  Ram should be accommodated elsewhere on an equivalent land,  and the orders passed on 10.6.86 by the Collector  as well  as that of the Commissioner made on 16.5.88 to contend that  the  appellants  had  acquired rights  to  retain  the entirety  of  the lands, in view of the fact that the  lands declared  surplus  were  not also utilised  by  taking  over possession  of the same.  It was also strenuously  contended that  there was no vesting of the lands declared surplus  in accordance   with   law  and,   therefore,   the   Financial Commissioner  committed  an  error in interfering  with  the orders  of  the Commissioner and the Collector.  Argued  the learned  counsel further that the High Court, in  dismissing the  Writ Petition without assigning any reason  whatsoever, committed  a  serious  mistake and,  therefore,  the  appeal before this court merits acceptance.

     Per  Contra, the learned counsel for the  respondents, who  are  the legal heirs of Jagat Ram, contended  that  the orders  of  the  Financial  Commissioner  dated  1.8.90  has considered the issues arising in their proper perspective on the  indisputable  position  arising out of  the  fixing  of ceiling  and declaration of surplus lands of the  landholder as  early as on 30.6.60, the subsequent allotment in  favour of  Jagat  Ram  on  24.3.82  and the deposit  of  a  sum  of Rs.5900/- on 30.3.82 which proved utilisation of the surplus land  even  during the life time of the landholder who  died only  on  2.2.84.   It  was   further  contended  for  those respondents  that  the  possession  of  the  lands  declared surplus  and  allotted  to  Jagat Ram  were  always  in  his possession  and this position being an indisputable fact  on record  the Commissioner and the Collector in passing orders on  10.6.86  and  16.5.88 merely proceeded  on  surmises  to sustain  the  claim  of  the appellants  and  therefore  the Financial  Commissioner was right in granting relief to  the respondents,  on a proper appreciation of all the facts  and by  applying  the  correct principles of law.   The  appeal, according to them, had no merits.

     The  first respondent-State also affirmed the  factual position  that the area in question was declared surplus and utilised  during  the  life  time   of  the  big  landholder Raghubinder  Nath  and,  therefore, the appellants  have  no rights  whatsoever  to  be vindicated and  consequently  the appeal only merited rejection.

     We  have been taken through the various orders  passed at  different times by the concerned authorities and we  are only  surprised  to notice that such orders were being  made from  time  to time taking into account one or the other  of the  facts  without  a comprehensive  consideration  of  the totality  of  facts and the law governing the case on  hand. The  impugned  orders  of the Financial  Commissioner  dated 1.8.90  only  analysed all those relevant aspects  in  their proper  perspective  and no exception could be taken to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

action  of the High Court in declining to interfere,  though it  would have been proper and desirable for the High  Court to  have given some reasons to disclose its mind, instead of rejecting the Writ Petition by a cryptic order.

     Shorn   of  all  controversies,   there  are   certain unalloyed  facts which can neither be ignored nor can escape the   attention  of  anyone   expected  to  adjudicate   the controversy  in  issue  and which have, in  our  view,  been rightly  taken  note  of by the Financial  Commissioner,  in passing the impugned order dated 1.8.90.  Even the Financial Commissioner  who  passed  orders on 10.3.83 on  a  revision petition filed by the landholder Raghubinder Nath recognised certain  facts  which  are indisputable on  record  and  the appellants,  who  strongly rely upon it to  derive  benefits given  thereunder  cannot afford to ignore or go behind  the same.  The fact that Jagat Ram was a tenant on the appointed date, as a consequence of which only the lands were allotted to  him  has  not also been disturbed  or  specifically  set aside.  Except for the fact that the Financial Commissioner, in  passing  those orders merely took into  account  Section 24-A(2)  of  the  Land  Tenures   Act  to  grant  a  further opportunity  to  select the permissible area,  by  observing that  another  opportunity  to   separate  the  area  after consolidation  has to be given to the landowner, there  is no  interference even by this authority of the fact that the ceiling  and surplus in respect of this landholder has  been already fixed, since then only the question of selecting the permissible  area arise, for the landholder.  The  Financial Commissioner  specifically recorded a finding about the lack of  bona  fide in the sale claimed to have been made by  the landholder  in 1954 in the following terms:  The petitioner has  however,  failed to prove his bona fides regarding  the land  transferred  by him in 1954.  The revenue record  does not  show  that possession of the land alleged to have  been sold in 1954 was actually transferred to the vendee in 1954. This  transfer as claimed has not been accepted as bona fide by the learned Collector.  If the land had been transferred, the  landowner  should  have produced copies of  the  khasra girdawaris  of  the crop subsequent to the execution of  the sale  deed dated 2.5.54.  Since this has not been done,  the transfer  of  the land as claimed by the landowner has  been rightly  disallowed by the learned Collector and endorsed by the learned Commissioner.

     The  predecessor-in-interest  of the  appellants  late Raghubinder  Nath was considered to be a big landholder  and by  an order dated 30.6.60, the ceiling was fixed in respect of  his holding and after ignoring the sales claimed to have been  made after 15.4.53 (the appointed date for purposes of the  1953  Land Tenures Act) an extent of 3 Std.  Acres 9  Â¼ Units  of land were declared surplus.  After  consolidation, the  area  in  the  hands  of the  landowner  seem  to  have increased  to  35 Std.  Acres-10 ½ Units and  thereafter  on 29.9.80 the extent of 3 Std.  Acres 9 ¼ Units was once again declared surplus by specifying the items of lands also viz., ‘‘Khasra  Nos.86-R/13  (6K-  4M),   1461/2  (0-15M),  1461/3 (1K-17M)  1462 (20K-12M) total measuring 29 K - 9 Marlas - 3 Standard  Acres  9  Â¼ Units.  The remaining  area  of  the landowner  was held to be his reserved area.  Thereafter, on 24.3.82,  the  Collector allotted the surplus land to  Jagat Ram  and thereupon Jagat Ram deposited the sum of Rs.5900/-. This  allotment  in his favour was on the basis that he  was the  tenant of the lands which came to be declared  surplus, also.   It is only in view of all these, the learned counsel

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

on either side concentrated at the time of hearing before us on  the  basic  question as to whether  the  lands  declared surplus  could be said to have been utilised even during the life  time  of  the landholder viz.  prior  to  2.2.84  when Raghubinder Nath died.

     The  decision in Bhagat Gobind Singh vs.  F.C., Punjab [1972  PLJ 319] on which strong reliance was placed for  the appellants  may  not be of any assistance in this case.   It could  be  seen from the said judgment that the  remand  and further  opportunity  given  for the landholder was  in  the context  of the orders/instructions of the State  Government dated  22.7.61  to  save, if at all, bona  fide  sales  made between  15.4.53 and 30.7.58 and more so, due to the  reason that  there  was no scope in that case when the ceiling  was fixed  and  surplus declared to undertake such an  exercise. So  far as the facts of the present case are concerned,  the sales  were held to be not bona fide by all the  authorities and  this fact also has been approved by the very orders  of the  Financial  Commissioner dated 10.3.83.  So far  as  the decision  of  this court reported in Rameshwar &  Ors.   Vs. Jot  Ram  &  Anr.   [1976(1)  SCC 194 =  1975  PLJ  454]  is concerned,  in construing Section 18(4) of the Land  Tenures Act,  this Court held that on the deposit of even the  first instalment  of the purchase price the tenant shall be deemed to have become the owner of the land.  The dispute sought to be  with  reference  to  the   vesting  as  well  as  taking possession  also has no merit.  Since the lands were already in  the possession of the tenant Jagat Ram, who happened  to be the allotee also, there is no substance in the challenge. The   landholder  or  his   heirs,  having  not   challenged specifically  the order dated 24.3.82, cannot be allowed  to dispute  this  factual  position  at  all.   The   Financial Commissioner  chose to give relief to the heirs of Jagat Ram only  on the ground that the lands declared surplus came  to be also utilised effectively under the Punjab Utilisation of Surplus  Area Scheme, 1973 before 2.2.84 when the landholder died  and therefore, there was nothing for the appellants to re-agitate  the matter once over again to revise the ceiling area  taking  advantage  of  the   death  of  the  erstwhile landholder.   The reasons, which weighed with the  Financial Commissioner  for granting relief to the heirs of Jagat  Ram by  passing  the  order dated 1.8.90, cannot be said  to  be either  illegal or suffer any serious infirmities whatsoever to call for any interference in this appeal.

     The   appeal  consequently  fails   and  shall   stand dismissed.  The parties shall bear their own costs.