Acres 2 Units 33 Std.
Acres 9 Units of land were declared surplus.
No doubt, to these proceedings the landowner was number impleaded as a party but only the State, represented by the Collector, was made a party.
This transfer as claimed has number been accepted as bona fide by the learned Collector.
The remaining area of the landowner was held to be his reserved area.
Aggrieved against the said proceedings, the heirs of the Raghubinder Nath approached the High Court unsuccessfully.
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.
It is interesting to numberice that even the revisional authority did number approve of the bona fide nature of the transfers said to have been effected in 1954 and adversely companymented upon the omission to produce companyies of the Khasra girdawaris for the period subsequent to the execution Sale Deed dated 2.5.54.
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.
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 .
On 31.3.76, the Collector Agrarian, Gurdaspur, after companypletion of the companysolidation proceedings in the area, passed an order declaring that there is numberarea 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 companysequential direction to the Collector, Gurdaspur, to allot the surplus land to him.
Since this has number 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 allottee Jagat Ram was also held to have number proved his possession of the lands.
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.
On that view, the execution proceedings were held to be premature and companysequently dismissed on 1.11.81.
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 companyclusion 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.
The challenge was further pursued before the Financial Commissioner by means of a Revision Petition.
As against the said proceedings, Jagat Ram filed an appeal before the Commissioner.
This appeal came to be dismissed on 16.5.88 on the ground that the area declared surplus did number vest in the State under Section 8 of the Act for want of numberice as required under Section 9 1 of the Act.
After companysolidation, the area in the hands of the landowner seem to have increased to 35 Std.
If the land had been transferred, the landowner should have produced companyies of the khasra girdawaris of the crop subsequent to the execution of the sale deed dated 2.5.54.
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 Units were declared as surplus.
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 Units.
Acres 8 Units sold already .
prior to 2.2.84 when Raghubinder Nath died.
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 companysolidation proceedings, if the land declared surplus had number been utilised by them.
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 companyld number be issued at that stage.
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.
In the meanwhile, on 29.9.80 the Collector Agrarian, Gurdaspur, passed an order declaring 3 Standard Acres and 9 Units to be the surplus area.
The predecessor in interest of the appellants late Raghubinder Nath was companysidered 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 Units plus 9 Std.
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.
Acres 9 Units was once again declared surplus by specifying the items of lands also viz.,
It is only in view of all these, the learned companynsel on either side companycentrated at the time of hearing before us on the basic question as to whether the lands declared surplus companyld be said to have been utilised even during the life time of the landholder viz.
Pursuant to the allotment so made, on 30.3.82 Jagat Ram was said to have deposited Rs.5,900/ .
The said suit came to be decreed on 7.11.79, ex parte.
Thereupon, the legal heirs of Jagat Ram pursued the matter before the Financial Commissioner by filing a revision and his legal heirs companytinued the same on account of his death.
Hence, this appeal.
Acres 10 Units and thereafter on 29.9.80 the extent of 3 Std.
Thereafter, on 24.3.82, the Collector allotted the surplus land to Jagat Ram and thereupon Jagat Ram deposited the sum of Rs.5900/ .
During pendency of the same, Jagat Ram died on 2.10.86 and the legal representatives were brought on record on 13.1.87.
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.
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.
Since Raghubinder Nath died leaving seven legal heirs, there is numbersurplus land with them and companysequently the allotment made in favour of Jagat Ram was number 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 decision in Bhagat Gobind Singh vs. F.C., Punjab 1972 PLJ 319 on which strong reliance was placed for the appellants may number be of any assistance in this case.
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 numberrights whatsoever to be vindicated and companysequently the appeal only merited rejection.
Raju, J. The appellants, who are the legal representatives of the original landholder Raghubinder Nath and were unsuccessful before the High Court, have companye 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 .
