Before the High Court, three companytentions were raised by the appellants 1 that the Collector had numberjurisdiction to review his order dated March 28, 1961 2 that the order in review was passed without numberice to the appellants , and 3 that, in any event, the judgment of the civilcourt only made a declaration as regards rights of the parties on the date of the suit and it was number, therefore, a judgment of the nature companytemplated by s. 32 DD.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 27th September, 1966, of the Punjab High Court at Chandigarh in Civil Writ No.
The Collector thereupon made a reference presumably under S. 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Code for sanction to the Commissioner of Patiala to review his order dated March 28, 1961, as it omitted to include the land in question in the holding of the first appellant on the basis of the judgment and decree.
The Act was amended by Act No.
After the death of the tastator, mutations in favour of appellants 2 and 3 were effected in the revenue records in the year 1996 B.K. 1939 .
The first appellant managed to get the mutation of the land in his name in 1944 for the reason that he wanted to get licence for a gun.
The sanction was given, the Collector reviewed the order and he refused to give effect to the judgment and decree by ignoring them as enjoined by s. 32 DD and included the land in the holding of the first appellant.
Future tenancies in surplus area and certain judgments etc.
That section reads 32 DD.
The appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab to quash this order.
K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja, M. Qamaruddin and Vinod Dhawan, for the appellants.
By a will executed by him, he bequeathed the property to appellants 2 and 3.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1897 of 1967.
C. Mahajan, O. P. Sharma and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents.
On the basis of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court that there was numbertransfer of the land to the first appellant, the Collector, by his order dated March 28, 1961, declared that there was numbersurplus land in the ownership and possession of the first appellant.
Chapter IV A of the Act was inserted by Pepsu Act No.
The first appellant was the only defendant in the suit.
The property in question belonged to the father of first appellant.
In 1955, when the Pepsu Tanancy and Agricultural Lands Act hereinafter referred to as the Act came into force, the first appellant was shown to be the owner of the land in the revenue records.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by MATHEW, J. The first appellant is the father of appellants 2 and 3.
A few weeks later, the question of declaration of the surplus area of the and in the hands of the, first appellant came up for companysideration before the Collector of Bhatinda.
1371 of 1963.
A suit was filed by appellants 2 and 3 for a declaration that the land belonged to them, that, the mutation of the land in the name of the first appellant in the revenue records was for the purpose of enabling him to obtain a gun licence and that there was numbertransfer of the land to first appellant.
He did number companytest the suit and it was decreed on February 14, 1961.
15 of 1956 on October 30, 1956 and by s. 32A of this chapter, ceiling was placed on the holding of land.
The High Court overruled all the companytentions and held that the order of the Collector was rendered null and void by virtue of the provisions of s. 32 DD and, therefore, the Collector had the power to determine by his order dated May 29, 1963, the surplus area after ignoring the judgment and decree.
16 of 1962 and s. 32 DD was introduced into the Act with retrospective effect from October 30, 1956.
