http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 14  

PETITIONER: KRISHNA KUMARI & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.  .

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       27/11/1998

BENCH: M.K. MUKHERJEE, & S.SAGHIR AHMAD.,

JUDGMENT:

--------

S. SAGHIR AHMAD ---------------

       Section 10A of the Punjab Security of  Land  Tenures Act, 1953  provides  that  the  State  Govt.  or any officer authorised by it  may  utilise  any  surplus  area  for  the resettlement  of  tenants  ejected  or  to  be ejected under clause (1) of sub-section (1) of Section  9.    The  further implication  of this Section is that if the surplus area, in the meantime, is acquired by the State Govt.  under any  law for  the  time  being  of  force, or it passes to an heir by inheritance, the surplus area so acquired or inherited would not be available for utilisation.   It  was  this  statutory provision  which  was sought to be invoked by the appellants who contended that the surplus area, on  the  death  of  the original  owner,  namely  Banarsi  Das, was inherited by the and, therefore, it could not be utilised  in  any  was,  not even  by  allotment  of  this  area in favour of Mangat Ram, which was liable to be cancelled, but they lost  before  all the authorities and have ultimately landed in this Court.

       Leave granted.

       Banarasi  Das,  father  of  the  appellants, was the owner of considerable land in Village  Kanthal  Kalan,  Dera Kalan, Dera  Khurd,  District Kurukshetra, Haryana.  An area of 137 Kanals 8 Marlas of land was declared as surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act,  1953  (hereinafter referred  to  as the "Punjab Act"), which was later replaced by  the  Haryana  Ceiling  on  Land   Holdings   Act,   1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Haryana Act").

       Banarsi Das  died  on  12th  January,  1971  leaving behind  Smt.  Dropadi Devi (wife) and the present appellants (daughters), as his heirs, who inherited the  property  left by  him.  Since each of them got land which was less than 30 standard acres and since the land in question had  not  been utilised,  they  gave an application under Section 10A(b) of the  Punjab  Act,  that  their  land may be taken out of the surplus pool. This application, which was filed  before  the Collector  (Agrarian), Karnal, on 4.7.1972 was registered as Case No. 2441/Agr., which came ultimately to  the  court  of S.D.O.  (Civil),  Karnal  for decision, During the course of the proceedings, report of the Patwari,  Teja  Singh,  dated 21.9.1972  and  that  of the Naib Tehsildar, Tarif Singh, of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 14  

the same date, were placed  on  record  which  were  to  the effect  that  on the surplus lands of Banarsi Das, no tenant had been re-settled. Consequently, S.D.O.  (Civil),  by  his order  dated  30.11.1972,  exempted  the  land  held  by the appellants and Smt. Dropadi Devi, who has since  died,  from the surplus pool.

       On 16.12.1977, the appellants gave an application to the  Collector  for cancellation of the allotment order made in favour of Mangat Ram on 13.7.1976, which  was  registered as Case No.    54/Agr.  Mangat Ram, it may be stated, is the father of  respondent  No.3.    This  case  was  decided  on 13.6.1978  by  the  Collector  (Agrarian),  Karnal,  and the allotment made in favour of Mangat Ram was cancelled on  the ground  that  the land had not been utilised and had already been exempted from the surplus  pool  as  indicated  by  the S.D.O.  in   his   order   dated  30.11.1972.    Mangat  Ram challenged the order in appeal before the Collector, Karnal, who, by his order dated  8.8.1983  allowed  the  appeal  and remanded  the  case  to  Collector  (Agrarian)  for  a fresh decision.  Aggrieved by this order, the  present  appellants filed  an  appeal  before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, who, by his order dated 26.9.1984 dismissed the appeal.  The appellants  then  filed  a  Revision  before  the  Financial Commissioner, but the Revision was dismissed on 28.2.1990.

       The  proceedings  remanded to Collector, Karnal were ultimately decided by him on 17.8.1992.  The application  of the  present  appellants  for  releasing  the  land from the surplus pool was rejected and the allotment order passed  in favour of  Mangat  Ram  was  upheld.    It  was found by the Collector that an area of 40 Kanals 16  Marlas  had  already been allotted to Mangat Ram on 21.2.1964 and possession over the  allotted  land  was also delivered to him on 17.3.1964. It was found that since the surplus land  had  already  been utilised  before  the  death  of  Bansarsi Das, there was no occasion to cancel the allotment made in  favour  of  Mangat Ram in 1964.  This judgment was challenged by the appellants in  an appeal filed before the Commissioner, Ambala Division but the appeal was dismissed on  20.1.1993.    The  Revision filed,   thereafter,   before  the  Financial  Commissioner, Haryana was dismissed on 21.1.1997.    The  appellants  then agitated  the  matter in a Writ Petition before the Punjab & Haryana  High  Court  which,  by  the   impugned   judgment, dismissed the Writ Petition on 14.8.1997.

       Shri  Rajinder Sachar, Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellants, has contended that there was no  utilisation of  surplus  land  under  the  Punjab  Act till the death of Banarsi Das  on  12.1.1971  and,  therefore,  the  land,  in question,  was  inherited by the appellants along with their mother Smt. Dropadi Devi who being the  small  farmers  were entitled  to  an  exemption  of  their land from the surplus pool.  It  is  also  contended  that  since  the  provisions contained  in the Punjab Act and the Rules framed thereunder with regard to the utilisation  of  surplus  area  were  not complied  with,  the land in question shall not be deemed to have been utilised. The land, after the  death  of  Bansarsi Das,  was  inherited by the appellants and since inheritance is saved under Section 10-A(b) of the Punjab Act,  the  area which  constituted  the land of the appellants was liable to be  excluded  from  surplus  area  or  there   has   to   be re-determination  of  surplus  area under the Haryana Act as succession had opened on 12.1.1971 on the death  of  Banarsi Das,  that  is,  ten  days  before  24.1.1971,  which is the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 14  

relevant date under that Act and the land devolved upon them by inheritance.

       Learned   counsel   for   the  respondents,  on  the contrary, has contended that after  the  land  was  declared surplus,  it  was  fully  utilised  by  an allotment made in favour of Mangat Ram to whom possession was  also  delivered in 1964.  Mangat Ram remained in possession over the area in question  throughout  his life by personally cultivating the land and after his death.   respondents  No.3  has  been  in possession  as  has  also  been found by all the authorities below.  It is contended that the findings  recorded  by  the Collector, karnal  as  also  by  the  Commissioner.   Ambala Division and the Financial Commissioner, to the effect  that the  land  was allotted to Mangat Ram in 1964 and possession was also delivered to him on 17.3.1964.    are  findings  of fact   which  cannot  be  questioned  in  these  proceedings particularly as the High Court had summarily  dismissed  the Writ   Petition  on  this  very  ground,  namely,  that  the findings, which were questioned before it, were findings  of fact.

       Section  10-A  and 10-B of the Punjab Act provide as under:-

               "10-A.    (a)    The State Government or any         officer empowered by it in  this  behalf,  shall  be         competent  to  utilize  any  surplus  area  for  the         resettlement of tenants ejected. or to  be  ejected,         under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 9.

               (b)    Notwithstanding anything contained in         any other law for the time being in force  and  save         in the case of land acquired by the State Government         under  any  law for the time being in force or by an         heir by inheritance no transfer or other disposition         of land which is comprised in surplus  area  at  the         commencement   of   this   Act.   shall  affect  the         utilization thereof in clause (a).

               Explanation  -  Such  utilization   of   any         surrplus  area  will  not  affect  the  right of the         land-owner  to  receive  rent  from  the  tenant  so         settled.

       (c) For the purposes of determining the surplus area         of  any  person  under  this  section, any judgment,         decree or order  of  a  court  or  other  authority,         obtained  after  the  commencement  of  this Act and         having the effect of diminishing the  area  of  such         person which could have been declared as his surplus         area shall be ignored.

       10-B.    Saving by inheritance not  to  apply  after         utilization  of surplus area. - Where succession has         opened after the surplus area or  any  part  thereof         has  been utilized under clause (a) of section 10-A,         the  saving  specified  in  favour  of  an  heir  by         inheritance  under  clause (b) of that section shall         not apply in respect of the area so utilised.

       While  Sub-clause (a) of Section 10-A authorises the State Government or any officer  empowered  by  it  in  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 14  

behalf  to  utilise any surplus area for the resettlement of tenants ejected, or to be ejected, under Section 9(1)(i)  of the  Act,  Clause (b) creates an exemption in favour of land which, in the meantime, is inherited by  the  heirs  on  the death of  the  land  owner.  The land so inherited cannot be utilised.  But if the land has already been  utilised,  then the exemption will not be available to the heirs as provided by Section 10-B.

       Part IV of the Rules made under the Punjab Act deals with the  resettlement  of  tenants  ejected  or  liable  to ejectment.     Rule   13   indicates   the   procedure   for dispossession of tenants liable to ejectment  under  Section 9(1)(i).  Rule 14 provides for resettlement of tenant on the application of   the   landowner.    Rule  15  provides  for resettlement on the application of the tenants.    Suo  motu proceeding  for  resettlement  of tenant can be initiated by the circle Revenue Officer under Rule 16. Rule 17  indicates the  procedure which is to be followed by the Circle Revenue Officer  while  Rule  18  provides  for  the  procedure  for allotment  of  land.  Rules 20-A, 20-B, 20-C and 20-D, which are relevant for purposes of the present  case,  provide  as under:-

               "20-A.    Issue  of  certificates.  -  Every         tenant  shall  be  given  a  certificate in Form K-6         describing clearly the land allotted to him. A  copy         each  of  the certificate shall be sent landowner on         whose land  the  tenant  is  to  be  resettled,  and         another  copy  shall  be  retained  on  the file for         record.

               20-B.    Delivery of possession. - (1) After         orders of allotment of any surplus  area  have  been         passed  the  Circle  revenue Officer, shall move the         Collector for passing necessary orders directing the         landowner or the tenant,  as  the  case  may  be  to         deliver  possession  of the land in his surplus area         to the Circle Revenue Officer, who shall  be  deemed         to  be an officer empowered by the Government, under         section  19-C,  for  the  purpose  of  delivery   of         possession.

               (2)  Every  tenant  resettled on the surplus         area shall be bound to take possession of  the  land         allotted to him within a period of two months of the         date  on  which  demarcation  of the land is made at         site in his presence or within such extended period,         as may, for reasons to be recorded  in  writing,  be         allowed by   the   Circle   Revenue  officer.    The         possession of the land shall  be  delivered  to  the         tenant by the Circle Revenue Officer himself.

               (3)  The  possession  of the land on which a         tenant is resettled shall ordinarily be given  after         the crops  are cut.  If, however, the Circle Revenue         Officer deems it necessary to deliver possession  of         the  land  to  any tenant before the crops are cut a         statement showing the crop and the  area  under  the         same  shall  be  prepared  by the Patwari before the         possession is taken by the tenant.  A  copy  of  the         statement  shall  be  furnished  to the landowner as         well as to the tenant.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 14  

               20-C.    Conditions  of  resettlement. - The         tenant who is resettled under this part-

               (a)   shall be tenant of  the  landowner  in         whose  name  the  land  in  question  stands  in the         revenue records;

               (b)   shall be liable to pay the same amount         of rent as is customary in that estate for such land         subject to the maximum fixed under section 12 of the         Act; and

               (c) shall in respect of the land upon  which         he  is  resettled execute a Qabuliyatt or a Patta as         given  in  Annexure  ’C’  appended  to  the   Punjab         Security  of  Land Tenures Rules, 1953, in favour of         the landowner before he is put in possession of  the         land.

       20-D.  Consequences of not taking possession.  -  In         case,  a  tenant does not take possession of surplus         area allotted to him, for  resettlement  within  the         period  specified in sub-rule (1) of rule 20-B, thee         allotment shall be liable to be  cancelled  and  the         area  allotted  to  such  tenant may be utilized for         resettlement of another tenant.

       The  statutory provisions quoted above indicate that the surplus land has to be  allotted  to  a  tenant  already ejected or  likely  to  be  ejected for resettlement.  After allotment of the surplus area to a tenant, a Certificate  in Form  K-6,  describing  clearly the land allotted to him, is issued, copies whereof are sent to the Patwari concerned  as also  the  landowner  on  whose  land  the  tenant  is to be resettled.  Thereafter, possession of the allotted  area  is delivered  to  the  tenant  who  is bound to take possession within  a  period  of  two  months  of  the  date  on  which demarcation  of the land is made at the site in his presence or within such extended period as  may  be  allowed  by  the Circle Revenue Officer. Once a tenant has been resettled, he becomes  the  tenant  of the landowner and becomes liable to pay rent to that owner, Rule 20-C(c) further  requires  that the  tenant  so  resettled,  shall  execute a Kabuliyat or a Patta on the Proforma given in Annexure ’C’ appended to  the Rules  in  favour  of  the  landowner.  But the execution of Kabuliyat or Patta has to be done before the tenant  is  put in possession of the land. Resettlement has to take place in the  manner  indicated  in  the  above  provisions. Once the process is completed, the surplus land shall be  treated  to have  been utilised within the meaning of Section 10-A(a) of the Punjab Act.

       In Financial Commissioner, Haryana State  and  other vs.  Smt.  Kela Devi and another, (1980) 1 SCC 77 = AIR 1980 SC 309 = 1980 (1) SCR 1120, it was indicated by  this  court as under:-

       "........   Rule  20-C provides, inter alia, for the         execution of a "qabuliyat" or "patta" by a resettled         tenant.  It would thus appear that  while  allotment         of  land  is  an  initial  stage  in  the process of         utilisation of  the  "surplus  area",  it  does  not         complete  that  process  as  it is necessary for the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 14  

       allottee to obtain a certificate of allotment,  take         possession  of  the land within the period specified         for the purpose, and to  execute  a  "qabuliyat"  or         "patta" in   respect   thereof.     The  process  of         utilisation contemplated by Section 10-A of the  Act         is  therefore  complete,  in respect of any "surplus         area" , only when possession thereof has been  taken         by  the  allottee  or  the  allottees  and the other         formalities have been completed,  and  there  is  no         force in the argument that a mere order of allotment         has the effect of completing that process."

       The Court further observed as under:-

       "........  Rule  20-D  of  the  Rules.....  provides         that in case a tenant does not  take  possession  of         the  "surplus area" allotted to him for resettlement         within the period specified therefor, the  allotment         shall  be  liable  to  be  cancelled  and  the  area         allotted to him may be utilised for the resettlement         of another tenant.  It cannot therefore  be  doubted         that a completed title does not pass to the allottee         on  a  mere  order  of  allotment, and that order is         defeasible if the other conditions prescribed by law         are not fulfilled."

       This decision was considered by a Constitution Bench in Ujjagar Singh (dead) by L.Rs. vs. The Collector, Bhatinda &  Anr.,  (1996)  5  SCC 14 = AIR 1996 SC 2623 = JT 1996 (6) S.C. 713, and was  approved.  The  Constitution  Bench  also considered  a  Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ranjit Ram  vs.  The  Financial  Commissioner, Revenue,  Punjab  & Ors. (1981) 83 P.L.R. 492, and observeed as under:-

       "According to us, the majority judgment of the  Full         Bench,  has  correctly  appreciated the scope of the         three enact-ments referred to above, Once the  lands         declared as surplus under the Pepsu Act did not vest         in  the  State Government, as possession thereof had         not  been  taken,  there   has   to   be   a   fresh         determination  in  respect  of  the  area  which the         appellant is entitled to hold in the  light  of  the         Punjab Act."

       Relying  upon   the   above   statutory   provisions specially   the   decision   of   this  court  in  Financial Commissioner, Haryana State and others vs.  Smt.  kela  Devi and  another  (supra) and the Constitution Bench decision in Ujjagar Singh (dead) by L.Rs.  vs.  The Collector,  Bhatinda & Anr.    (supra)  which  approved  the  earlier decision in Financial Commissioner, Haryana State and others vs.    Smt. Kela Devi  (supra),  it is contended by Mr.  Rajinder Sachar that in the instant case, the process of utilisation did not move beyond the stage of allotment in favour of  Mangat  Ram and,  therefore,  the land shall not be treated to have been utilised as neither possession was taken over by him nor did he execute any Kabuliyat in favour of Banarsi Das  till  the time of   latter’s  death  on  12.1.1971.    On  that  date, succession to Banarsi Das opened and the  land  came  to  be inherited  by  the  appellants  as also their mother who has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 14  

since died.  It is also  contended  that  the  Haryana  Act, under  which  the  relevant  date  is 24th of January, 1971, would not affect the rights of the appellants  as  they  had already  inherited the surplus land before the relevant date and consequently their application for cancellation  of  the allotment,  made  in  favour of Mangat Ram, was liable to be allowed.

       Whether  all  the  steps  indicated  in  the  Rules, referred to above for utilisation of land, were observed and followed  or not, is a question which has been considered by all the authorities before whom the matter was agitated  and they  have concurrently held against the appellants and have recorded the finding that possession of the land allotted to Mangat Ram was delivered to him.  We would normally have not entered, in the present proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution, into those questions of fact, but Mr.   Sachar has  Vehemently contended that all the steps for utilisation of surplus land were not taken, specially possession thereof was  not  delivered  to  Mangat  Ram  and,  therefore,   the mandatory  requirements  indicated  in the Act and the rules were violated  which  has  impelled  us  to  scrutinise  the findings  in  the light of the arguments raised before us as also  the  material  brought  on  record   through   various affidavits by the parties in this case.

       Collector, Agrarian, Thanesar,  Distt.  Kurukshetra, in  his  judgment dated 17.8.1992 has recorded the following findings:-

       "Allotment  made  in  favour  of Mangat Ram has been         admitted by  the  petitioners  themselves  in  their         application  dated  16.12.77 and in this application         they have made a request to the collector, Agrarian,         Karnal that  the  allotment  may  be  cancelled  and         possession may  be delivered back to them.  When the         petitioner themselves admit the possession of Mangat         Ram so this land cannot be said to be unutilised.  I         am in agreement with the contention of  the  counsel         for  the  respondent  Ram  Dia, legal heir of Mangar         Ram.  Land was allotted to Mangat Ram on 21.2.64 and         the  possession  had  been  delivered  vide   report         rozmancha no.    219  dated  17.3.64  which has been         admitted by  the  petitioners  themselves  in  their         application and all the Courts have admitted this as         such.   Therefore,  the  land  stood utilised at the         time of death of big land owner and for  the  reason         this  case does not fall within the ambit of Section         10 A(b) of Punjab Security of Tenures Act.   So  far         as thee question of report of Teja Singh Patwari and         that   of   Naib   Tehsildar   Agrarian  dated  21st         September, 1972 is concerned,  in  which  they  have         said  that  the  land  was not utilised, it is found         from the record that  on  the  basis  of  the  facts         aforequoted, the  lands stands utilised.  The report         has no basis nor this report  is  on  the  basis  of         record.

               The counsel for the petitioners contend that         the  report rozmancha no. 219 dated 17.3.64 has been         fabricated because two kinds of papers are  used  in         it  and  page  no.29  is  not  pasted on its serial.         Roznamcha has been fabricated afterwards.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 14  

               In  this  respect  the   counsel   for   the         respondents  while  arguing  has  submitted that the         report  roznamcha  has   been   properly   prepared.         Reference of this report has been made by Collector,         Agrarian, Karnal in his order dated 13th June, 1978,         Collector  Agrarian,  Karnal in his order dated 27th         October, 1982, Collector Karnal is his order  dated,         8th  August, 1983 and by the Financial Commissioner,         Haryana  in  his  order  dated  28.2.1990  but   the         petitioners  never  expressed  any  doubt as to this         report  roznamcha  nor  raised  any  objection  ever         although  this  document  is  important  one in this         case.  Now describing this report roznamcha as wrong         is not justified.  In addition to  this  the  Expert         who  has  been  produced  with regard to this report         roznamcha, he does not know how to  write  and  read         Urdu.   Then  how  can  he express his opinion about         this document?    The  Collector,  Karnal  has  also         written  in  his order dated 8th August, 1983 to the         effect "that it is an admitted fact that Mangat  Ram         son  of Kalu Ram was allotted 40 Kanals 16 marlas of         land on 21.2.1964 as ’B’ category tenant  possession         whereof   was   given   vide  report  no  219  dated         17.3.1964.  Appellants were issued from US-3 on  9th         September, 1976.  The petitioners also have admitted         the  possession  of  Mangat Ram in their application         dated  16.12.1977  from  where  it  is  proved  that         possession  was  delivered to Mangat Ram vide report         roznamcha No.  219 dated 17.3.1964."

       Regarding From K-6, the finding is to the  following         effect:-

               "Counsel for the petitioners has also raised         an  objection  that there is no Form K-6 on the file         whereas one copy of Form K-6 is given  to  the  land         owner  as  per  Section 20 of the Punjab Security of         Land Tenures Act  and  one  copy  is  given  to  the         allottee  and  one  copy is retained on the file but         Form K-6 has never been issued.

               Counsel  for  the  respondents  has drawn my         attention to index form of file No.   332/Anti  Agr.         In this  form  reference  to  Form  K-6 is made.  He         submitted that the petitioners have deliberately got         removed this form because by  showing  this  missing         they want  to  take  benefit.  I am in agreemtn with         the contention for the counsel for the  respondents.         In the  index  form  in file No.  332/Anti Ar., Form         K-6 has been referred to which is prepared  in  Urdu         and  this file was consigned to the record room vide         Goshwara No.  1388.  If Form K-6 was  not  there  at         the time of consigning this file in the record room,         then  it was not possible to assign Goshwara on this         file.  In addition to this report  no.    219  dated         17.3.64 makes  a  reference to Form K-6.  Therefore,         this argument is not acceptable though in this  case         From   K-6   has  not  been  issued  or  that  other         formalities having been completed, rather  the  land         had been  allotted as per the rules.  Possession was         given to the allottee on  21.3.1964,  Form  K-6  was         issued,  vide  form US-3 the proprietory rights were         conferred on the allottee.  So  far  as  writing  of         Kabuliatnama  is concerned, in this respect also the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 14  

       arguments of counsel for respondents is  justifiable         that  it  is  the  duty of the big land owner to get         executed the Kabuliatnama but the big land owner had         made on efforts in this respect.

               Therefore, from all the facts  above  noted,         it  is  clear  that  40 Kanals 16 marlas area of big         land owner Banarsi Das was allotted on 21.2.1964  to         Sh.   Mangat Ram son of Kalu Ram, possession whereof         had been given to Mangat Ram and  until  today  this         area  is under cultivation of Ram Dia, legal heir of         Mangat Ram, whose  name  appears  in  jamabandi  and         Girdawari.    The  petitioners  themselves  admitted         possession of  Mangat  Ram  at  the  spot  in  their         application  dated  16.12.1977 and had made a prayer         before the Collector that allotment may be cancelled         and  possession  may  be  delivered  back  to  them.         Instalments   of   surplus   land   have  also  been         deposited.  After the possession  was  delivered  to         Mangat  Ram,  big  land  owner  Banarsi  Das died on         12.1.1971 i.e.  the land stood utilised  before  the         death of  big land owner.  From US-3 has been issued         to the allottee  and  proprietary  rights  has  been         conferred on him.

       The  Commissioner,  Ambala Division, in his judgment dated 20.1.1993, has recorded the following findings:-

       "As regards the allotment factum, it is proved  from         the allotment  file  No.    332  that  this land was         allotted to  the  respondent’s  father  Mangat  Ram.         This  fact  was  also  admitted by the appellants in         1972 and 1977  when  they  requested  the  Collector         Agrarian to  cancel the allotment.  The respondent’s         counsel however, did not have any  convincing  reply         to  the  insertion  of page in the Roznamcha bearing         the Rapat No.  219.   The  appellant’s  counsel  has         tried  to  prove  this  forgery  with  the  help  of         handwriting expert as well.  Nevertheless, it cannot         be assumed that any forgery or fabrication was  done         by the  respondent  side.    It was an old record of         1964 and only the revenue  officials  of  that  time         could  best prove the fact genuineness or forgery in         this regard.  The  respondent  being  a  tenant  and         illiterate  person  cannot  be exempted of doing any         forgery or fabrication of records.   The  appellants         never  raised  these  pleas  earlier  at the time of         seeking exemption and cancellation of the allotment.         It, therefore, appears that it  is  an  after-though         story  to  take benefit some technical ommissions in         the procedures.  In my opinion the allotment is well         established in favour of the respondent.

               As regards the factum of utilisation the Id.         counsel  for the appellants relied on the provisions         contained in rule 20-A to  20-C  and  the  judgments         cited in his arguments.  the basic point on which he         relied was that the requirement of rule 20-A to 20-C         were  not  fulfilled  and  therefore,  there  was no         utilisation in the eye of law and if  the  land  was         not  utilised  during  the life time of the big land         owner, then his legal heirs were entitled to benefit         of section 10-A (b) of the Act.  The  Id.    counsel         basically  relied  on  the  judgment  of the Hon’ble

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 14  

       Supreme Court of India reported in 1980 PLJ page 121         in case F.C.  Haryana versus Smt.    Kela  Devi  and         others.   On going through the details of this case,         it is revealed that this  verdict  related  to  that         piece of land of which possession was not admittedly         given to  the  tenants/allottee.    In this case the         Commissioner and the F.C.  had taken a view that the         order  of  allotment  of  the  surplus  area  itself         amounted to utilisation of that land u/s 10A(a).  In         this  case an area of 8 Kanals in village Ghelab was         not allotted to any tenant  though  it  was  in  the         surplus  pool  and  the  possession of this land was         also not given to any-one.  This  verdict  basically         pertains to  this  piece of land.  The Hon’ble Court         had observed in  their  judgment  itself,  that  the         controversy  before  them  does  not relate to those         pieces of land which had been  allotted  to  various         tenants and  possession  was  given to them.  In the         instant case the factum of allotment and  possession         was   earlier   admitted   by   the  appellants  and         therefore, this ruling is  not  applicable  in  this         case.  The case law referred to in PLJ 1989 page 95,         PLJ  1991  page  180, 1982 PLJ 171, 1992 PLJ page 71         and 160 and 1981 PLJ 21 are relevant in cases  where         the  possession  was not delivered to the allottees.         In the instant case the possession of the respondent         is proved from the revenue record since  1965.    As         regards the issuance of certificate in form K-6, the         same does not exist on the file as the pages from 33         to  38 of the allotment file are missing which might         have contained  the  form  K-6.     It   would   be,         therefore,  improper  to  assume  that  Form K-6 was         never issued to the tenants."

       The Financial Commissioner, in  his  Judgment  dated 21st of January, 1997 recorded the following findings:-

       10.     The case of the  petitioners  is  that  even         though  the  surplus  area  case of their father was         decided in April, 1961 and some  land  was  declared         surplus, yet the same had not been utilized till the         time   of   the  death  of  their  father  in  1971.         Therefore, under  Section  10(A)(b)  of  the  Punjab         Security  of  Land  Tenures  Act,  1953,  they  were         entitled  to  get  exemption  from  the  land  being         declared  surplus  as the successors of the big land         owner were   small   land-owners.      The   present         petitioners  have  quite  laboriously harped on this         issue that the allotment  of  the  surplus  land  in         favour of  Sh.   Mangat Ram was fake and forgery was         done in various documents to show that possession of         the land had been given to Sh.  Mangat Ram.

       11.     Even though he succeeded  in  creating  some         doubts  about  the  genuineness of certain documents         about the delivery of possession, yet his  arguments         lose force because:-

       i)      According to his own statement contained  in         application   dated   16.12.1977   made  before  the         collector (Agrarian) Karnal, 42 Kanal  14  marla  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 14  

       land  out  of  surplus  pool  of  Banarsi  Das,  was         allotted to Sh.  Mangat  Ram  father  of  respondent         No.2 in 1964 and US-3 Form of the land was issued on         9.9.76  while  by that time land stood exempted from         the  surplus  pool,  vide  Collector   order   dated         13.11.72.    The   prayer   was  that  allotment  be         cancelled and possession given to them.  This  shows         that the present petitioners were aware in 1972 when         they  applied  on  the  death  of  their  father for         exemption of land from the  surplus  pool  that  the         land  declared  surplus had already been allotted to         some persons.  If this fact had been disclosed,  the         Collector  (Agrarian) Karnal would not have exempted         the land from surplus pool without giving notice  to         the allottees of the land.

       ii)     In  their  application  dated  16.12.77  the         present  petitioners  were  requesting the Collector         (Agrarian) Karnal to cancel the said allotment  made         in 1964  and  restore  the possession to them.  This         shows that the present  petitioners  were  admitting         the  fact  that  the  possession of land had already         been given to the respondents.  Their contention  is         that  if  possession  had actually been given to the         respondents  on  17.3.64  as   mentioned   in   Rapt         Roznamcha No.    219,  the  same  should  have  been         reflected in Girdawari of Rabi 1964 or Kharif  1964.         Revenue  record  has  been produced to show that the         respondents were in possession  of  the  land  since         1965.    Absence   of  Girdwari  in  favour  of  the         respondents for Rabi 1964 or Kharif 1964  cannot  be         taken  to  mean  that the delivery of possession was         fake.

       iii)    The  plea  that entire allotment proceedings         of surplus land in favour of Sh.    Mangat  Ram  was         fake, was never raised by the present petitioners at         an  earlier  stage  particularly  when  they went to         Collector (Agrarian) Karnal in  December,  1977  for         cancellation  of allotment of surplus land in favour         os Sh.  Mangat Ram  and  restoration  of  possession         back from him.

       12.     After going through  the  arguments  of  the         Counsels  and  perusing  the  record  of the case it         becomes apparent that the land of Shri Banarsi  Dass         declared  surplus  in  April, 1961 had been allotted         and possession  given  to  the  allottees.    It  is         possible  that  in  the  process  of  allotment  and         utilisation   of   surplus   land   some   of    the         technicalities  like  execution  of Kabuliat Nama or         delivery of possession within 2 months of  the  date         of  allotment  may not have been fully comlied with.         But these are mere technicalities and a poor  tenant         cannot  be  deprived  of  his  right to allotment of         surplus  land   merely   because   some   of   these         technicalities  about  delivery  of  possession  and         utilization of land had not been complied  with.  In         this  connection  the  rulings quoted by the counsel         for the respondents namely :         1990 PLJ-485 and 1991 PLJ-714, are quite relevant."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 14  

       From the aforesaid findings, it would be  seen  that the land in question was, admittedly, allotted to Mangat Ram in 1964.    Possession  was  also delivered to him over that land.  Form K-6 is indicated to  have  been  issued  in  the report relating to delivery of possession.  Form K-6 is also indicated in  the  index of the relevant file.  The index is prepared in  the  course  of  official  business  and  every document which is placed on the record is first indexed.  If the document is not on the record, it would not mean that it was never  filed.    Form  K-6  was issued as far back as in 1964.  Since  it  has  been  mentioned  in  the  report  for delivery  of  possession and is also mentioned in the index, its non-availability on the file would be of no  consequence and  it would be treated to have been issued at the relevant time in terms of the requirement contained in the Rules.

       Mr.  Sachar  drew  our  attention  to  the following findings recorded by the Commissioner,  Ambala  Division  in his Judgment dated 20th of January, 1993:-

       "Regarding  the execution of Kabuliatnama Under rule         20-C.  the respondent counsel has relied  upon  1990         PLJ  485  and 1991 PLJ 714 which lay down that after         delivery of possession execution of Kabuliatnama  or         Patta  Nama is mere technicality and the utilisation         cannot be assailed on this  ground  when  the  other         conditions are  complete.   I find these two rulings         quite relevant to the instant case."

as also the following observations  made  by  the  Financial Commissioner, Haryana, in his judgment dated 21.1.1997:-

       "It is possible that in the process of allotment and         utilisation   of   surplus   land   some   of    the         technicalities  like  execution  of Kabuliat Nama or         delivery of possession within 2 months of  the  date         or  allotment  may not have been fully comlied with.         But these are mere technicalities and a poor  tenant         cannot  be  deprived  of  his  right to allotment of         surplus  land   merely   because   some   of   these         technicalities  about  delivery  of  possession  and         utilization of land had not been complied with.

and contended that these findings are wholly contrary to law laid down by this Court  in  Financial  Commissioner’s  case (supra) and,  therefore,  cannot  be  sustained  in law.  He contended that if "Kabuliyat" was not executed by Mangat Ram in favour of  Banarasi  Das  at  the  time  of  delivery  of possession,  one  of  the  steps  for utilisation of surplus land,  indicated  in  Rule  20-C  was  not   followed   and, therefore,  the  land  could  not  be  treated  to have been utilised prior to the death of Banarsi Das in 1971.   It  is contended  that  the requirements indicated in Rule 20-C are mandatory in nature and, therefore, they had to be followed. If "Kabuliyat" was not executed, the land, it is  contended, cannot be  treated  to  have  been  utilised.    We  are not prepared to accept this contention.

       Undoubtedly, all the requirements indicated in  Rule 20-C  are  mandatory in character and, therefore, clause (c)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 14  

of Rule 20-C will also be mandatory for the reason that  the first  part of this clause contains in imperative terms that the tenant shall execute a "Kabuliyat" or "Patta" in  favour of  the  land-owner  and  the  second  part which is equally imperative says that it shall be done before  possession  is delivered to  the  tenant.  It is obvious that if the second mandatory step was taken and the possession  over  the  land was  delivered  by  the  Revenue  Circle  Officer himself as required by Rule 20-B, there is no reason  to  believe  that the  first mandatory step, immediately preceding thee second step, was not taken particularly  as  possession  would  not have  been  delivered  to  Mangat  Ram  without execution of "Kabuliyat".  In fact,  delivery  of  possession  being  the official  act  of the Revenue Circle Officer as indicated in Rule  20-B,  a  presumption  has  to  be  raised  that   all antecedent formalities were duly complied with.

       There  is  another  reason  for  not  accepting this argument of the the learned counsel for the  appellants.  It is indicated in Section 9(1)(vi) that if the tenant does not execute  the  "Kabuliyat"  in  favour  of the land-owner, he would be liable  to  be  ejected.  Form  of  "Kabuliyat"  is specified in Annexure ’C’ appended to the Punjab Security of Land  Tenures  Rules, 1953. It is in the form of a statement made by the tenant that he has taken the land  belonging  to "X"  for  cultivation  to  whom  he  would  pay the rent per agriculture year regularly in time. The  tenant  also  gives the undertaking that he would not :

       i)     fail, without sufficient cause, to  cultivate         the  land  comprised in my tenancy, in the manner or         to the extent customary in the locality in which the         land is situate;

       ii)     use the land comprised in my  tenancy  in  a         manner which may render it unfit for the purpose for         which hold it; and

       iii)     sublet the tenancy or a part thereof.

       Note given at the foot  of  the  Form  of  Kabuliyat reads as under:-

       "Note:-   This Kabuliyat or patta should be executed         by the tenants in duplicate, who will give, one copy         to the land-owner concerned and retain the other:-

       "Kabuliyat"  is  a  document  which  is  executed in favour of land-owner and on being executed, is given to  the landowner.   The landowner, therefore, has to have it in his possession.  Surprisingly, there is no averment in the  Writ Petition  or anywhere else that "Kabuliyat" was not executed in favour of Banarsi Das.   Moreover,  had  Mangat  Ram  not executed the Kabuliyat or Patta in favour of Banarsi Das, he would  have  been, by now, evicted from the land in question in view of the provisions contained in Section 9(1)(vii)  of the Punjab  Act.    He would not have allowed to continue in possession from 1964 till this date or  at  least  till  the death  of  Banarsi Das in 1971 without any proceedings being initiated for  his  eviction.    Since  Mangat  Ram  was  in possession  throughout,  he  shall  be treated to have had a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 14  

valid title to remain in possession which can be  traced  to the  allotment  of  land  followed by delivery of possession after  completion  of  all   other   formalities   including execution of "Kabuliyat" or Patta.

       It  was  next  contended on behalf of the appellants that "Kabuliyat" is not on record and, therefore, it must be held that it was not executed by Mangat Ram  when  the  land was allotted  to  him.   This argument cannot be accepted in view of the findings recorded by the authorities  below  who had  also  considered  the  effect  of  the so-called forged document, that possession  of  the  land  was  delivered  to Mangat  Ram  in  1964  and  that  he  has been in continuous possession since  then.    We  cannot,  merely  because  the "Kabuliyat"  is  not  on  record, hold that the Kabuliyat or Patta was not executed by Mangat Ram.  Moreover, "Kabuliyat" is executed in duplicate.  The original is  handed  over  to the  land-owner  while  the  copy is retained by the tenant. There is no requirement under the Act or the  Rules  that  a copy of "Kabuliyat" shall also be placed on record.

       Learned counsel for the appellants also assailed the findings  of  the  Commissioner,  Ambala  Division and those recorded by the Financial Commissioner  that  there  was  an admission   of  the  appellants  in  their  application  for cancellation of allotment made in favour of Mangat Ram  that possession over  surplus  land was delivered to him.  It was pointed out that the application contains a recital that  if possession  is  found  to have been delivered to Mangat Ram, the same may be restored to the appellants.    This,  it  is alternative which can be legally made.

       The  averment  contained in the application may not, in the strict  sense,  be  treated  as  "admission"  of  the appellants,  but  their pleadings do exhibit a hesitant mind in as much  as  Mangat  Ram,  to  their  knowledge,  was  in possession  over the land since 1964 and continued to remain in  possession  uninterruptedly  as  a  tenant,   but   they circumventively,  as  artificers,  say  in their application that IF possession was found with Mangat Ram, the  same  may be restored  to  them.    The  use  of  the  word  "IF" is a deliberate  contrivance  so  as  to   make   the   admission conditional.   Even  if this is excluded from consideration, the findings on the question  of  possession  can  still  be sustained on the basis of other evidence on record.

       No other plea was raised before us. For the  reasons stated  above,  we  find  no  merits  in the appeal which is dismissed but without any order as to costs.