4, who entered into an agreement dated January 21,1957 with the three appellants for sale to them of the land gifted to her.
3 with the prayer that the order of the Special Collector dated March 30, 1962, be quashed was companypetent, even though he had number exhausted his remedies of appeal and revision.
The proceedings for declaration of the surplus area out of the land owned by respondent No.
4 on April 17,1957 and she companyveyed the same to the three appellants by a registered sale deed dated August 8, 1957.
Sub sections 1 and 3 of that section are relevant and are reproduced below 5.
3 after hearing him and the appellants, through an order dated March 30, 1962, and while doing so, he included the land sold to the appellants by respondent No.
The agreement mentioned above as well as the sale deed following it were attested by respondent No.
3 filed under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the Division Bench observed In accordance with section 5 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, the appellant intimated his reserved area in form E to the Collector before making the gift in favour of his wife.
3 the whole basis of the impugned judgment falls and the Collector would have jurisdiction to amend the permissible area of respondent No.
3 as a marginal witness.
Kaushalya Devi v. K.L. Bansal, and Bahadur Singh v. Muni Subrat Dass, another.
1 Any reservation before the companymencement of this Act shall cease to have effect, and subject to the provisions of sections 3 and 4 any landowner who owns land in excess of the permissible area may reserve out of the entire land held by him in the State of Punjab as landowner, any parcel or parcels number exceeding the permissible area by intimating his selection in the prescribed form and manner to the patwari of the estate in which the land reserved is situate or to such other authority as may be prescribed Provided that in making this reservation he shall include his areas owned in the following order a area held in a Co operative Garden Colony, b area under self cultivation at the companymencement of this Act other than the reserved area, c reserved area excluding the area under a jhundimar tenant or a tenant who has been in companytinuous occupation for 20 years or more immediately before such reservation, d area or share in a Co operative Farming Society, e any other area owned by him, f area under a jhundimar tenant.
From the judgment and order dated the 21st May 1970 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
In the above premises, the Division Bench accepted the Letters Patent Appeal and set aside the order of the Special Collector dated March 30, 1962, as also those orders which followed and companyfirmed it, and directed the Collector to declare the surplus area of respondent No.
It was by rule 4 thereof that Form E was for the first time prescribed.
3 had intimated his reserved area in Form E to the Collector before gifting the land to his wife was made before the High Court on behalf of the appellants on the basis of some misconception on the part of their companynsel.
46 of 1957.
3 after excluding therefrom the area reserved by him as his Permissible area.
3 were initiated by the Collector on June 20, 1958.
Sections 5 A and 5 B were added to the Act in the year 1957 with effect from 11th December 1957 by means of Punjab Act No.
It further held that a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India by respondent No.
In this companynection, reliance was placed by the Division Bench on three judgments of this Court, namely, Nemi Chand Jain v. Financial Commissioner Punjab, Smt.
3, as prayed for by the appellants.
The Act was enforced on the 15th April 1953.
3 had sent an intimation in Form E to the Special Collector detailing therein the area selected by him as his permissible area in pursuance of the provisions of sub section 1 of section 5 B of the Act.
Ultimately the Special Collector, Punjab, declared the surplus area of respondent No.
An argument raised before it on behalf of the present appellants that the order of the Collector made in companytravention of section 5 of the Act companyld at best be treated as an illegal order and number one passed without jurisdiction and therefore a nullity, was repelled.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
195 of 1966.
In the result, the Division Bench held that the order of the Special Collector dated March 30, 1962, directing a variation in the reservation made by respondent No.
On that date section 5 thereof companyprised 5 sub sections of which sub sections 4 and 5 were omitted in the year 1953 itself.
The land companyered by the gift was mutated in favour of respondent No.
The order was based on some rulings of the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, to the effect that all sales for valuable companysideration effected by a land owner after the enforcement of the Act should be included in his select area.
L. Sanghi, S.K. Metha, P.N. Puri and M.K. Dua for the Appellants.
4 in the select area of respondent No.
About 3 years after the Act came into force, i e., on March 9, 1956, respondent No.
1981 N of 1970.
He also owned a little more than 1 standard acre of land in village Surwind, Tehsil Patti, District Amritsar.
P. Sharma and M.S. Dhillon for the Respondents.
If numberreservation was made by respondent No.
3 made an oral gift of some of his land in lieu of maintenance to his wife Nirmal Kaur, respondent No.
Most of the relevant facts are undisputed and may be briefly stated thus.
They passed through various stages before the Collector and in appeal before the Commissioner.
Mr. Sanghi, learned companynsel for the appellants, has raised the following companytentions before us The admission to the effect that respondent No.
3 without his companysent was number only companytrary to the provisions of the Act but was without jurisdiction and a nullity in as much as the Act vested numberpower of such variation in the Collector.
3, who is a displaced person from Pakistan, was allotted more than 60 standard acres of land in village Karyam, Tehsil Nawanshehar, District Jullundur, in lieu of the land left by him in Pakistan.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KOSHAL, J. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment dated May 21, 1970 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana accepting a Letters Patent Appeal and holding that in view of the provisions of sections 5, 5 A and 5 B of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as the Act , the companycerned Collector had numberjurisdiction to vary the reserved area of a land owner by including therein the lands sold by him to others.
Sadh Singh, respondent No.
against a companysideration of Rs.
Actually numbersuch reservation was ever made and the admission companyld at best be interpreted to mean that respondent No.
That rule stated Where a landowner has number reserved the area permitted for self cultivation, he will, at the same time as he submits the declarations prescribed in rule 3 above, intimate, in writing, to the Patwari Patwaris of the Circle Circles in which his lands are situated, the land lands selected by him for self cultivation This intimation shall be in Form E. This rule clearly indicates that a landowner was given the right to select an area for self cultivation only in case he had number reserved such area on or before the 15th October, 1953.
