1 Rajender Kumar before the High Court by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
1 Madan Lal.
1, and the so called sales were followed by mutation of their names as per mutation entries Nos.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge the appellants who are the legal heirs of Harditta Ram filed Letters Patent Appeal No.
3 to 14 from the array of respondents on the ground that they were number necessary parties to the proceedings.
Respondent Nos, 1 and 2 preferred an appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector but the Collector rejected the same on August 31, 1961.
The High Court had disposed of Letters Patent Appeal No.
On July 1.
205 and 206 dated April 14, 1955.
But the Assistant Collector by his order dated February 23, 1961 deleted their names from the array of respondents presumably on the objection raised by the appellants that they were number necessary parties to the proceedings.
April I, 1955 to the State.
80 of 1967 on February 27, 1967, with which we are companycerned.
1 and 2 preferred a revision to the Commissioner who by his order dated June 18, 1962 made a reference to the Financial Commissioner holding that since Harditta Ram made a statement before the Assistant Collector on December 22, 1960 by which he companyfined his application for purchase under Section 18 1 of the Act against respondent No.
3 to 14 and that they were small landowners thereof.
The Assistant Collector however on February 23, 1961 struck off the names of respondent Nos.
On the same day, he allowed the purchase application of Harditta Ram, the predecessor in title of the appellants against respondent Nos.
That suit of theirs was decreed by the Subordinate Judge, Fazilka on February 20, 1967.
The learned Single Judge was evidently of the view that under the scheme of the Act devolution of interest by inheritance or survivorship had to be taken into account for purposes of determining the rights of tenants under Section 18 1 of the Act.
He opined that the order of the Assistant Collector as well as that of the Collector affirming the same were therefore without jurisdiction.
The impugned order of the Financial Commissioner was assailed by respondent No.
Against the order of the Collector, respondent Nos.
That application of theirs was allowed by the Assistant Collector on November 8, 1960.
Furthermore, the respondents had already been declared to be small landholders by the Collector, Ferozepur by his order dated July 17, 1961 and the learned Subordinate Judge of Fazilka by his judgment and decree dated February 10, 1967 declared their right and title to the lands in dispute holding that respondent Nos.
1 and 2 were apparently companylusive and therefore the Assistant Collector and the Collector were justified in ignoring the same.
1968 they applied for being impleaded as parties on the ground that the Collector, Ferozepur by his order dated July 17, 1961 while determining the surplus area of the landowner Kulwant Rai held that the alleged sales in favour of respondent Nos.
3 to 14 made an application as his heirs to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings.
The alleged sales did number create any right or title in the transferees since the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were extended by the State Government of Punjab by a numberification dated March 26, 1955 w.e.f.
Kulwant Rai purported to make oral sales of 10 bighas 10 biswas of land to his brother in law Madan Lal, respondent No.
The Financial Commissioner by his order dated December 18, 1962 however declined to interfere with the order of the Assistant Collector and the Collector and directed that the reference papers be filed.
80 of 1967.
80 of 1967 in terms of the main judgment which has number become final.
1 and 2 companyld number and did number pass any title whatsoever.
1 and 2 Madan Lal and Rajender Kumar, the transferees from Kulwant Rai.
The aforesaid Kulwant Rai died on August 22, 1960 and respondent Nos.
The Collector further held that upon the death of Kulwant Rai on August 22, 1960, the lands were inherited by respondent Nos.
During the pendency of the proceedings before the Assistant Collector Surplus who is the Prescribed Authority under the Act, the aforesaid Kulwant Rai died on August 22, 1960 and on October 13, 1960 respondent Nos.
This appeal was heard along with Letters Patent Appeal Nos.
Respondent Nos.
Both of them were closely related to Kulwant Rai, the original land owner and obviously the transfers were companylusive.
On July 17, 1968 they were impleaded as party respondents in Letters Patent Appeal No.
He held that the alleged transfers in favour of respondent Nos.
The Assistant Collector and the Collector both held that Harditta Ram having fulfilled the requirements of Section 18 1 of the Act, he was entitled to purchase the lands from both the transferees.
Thus, neither the original landholder Kulwant Rai number respondent Nos.
As regards the objection that Kulwant Rai having died during the pendency of the proceedings on August 22, 1960, there was a change in status of the land owners against whom the application under Section 18 1 of the Act was made as on that date inheritance opened and his legal heirs became small landowners, he held that admittedly the application as made by Harditta Ram was companypetent on the day it was filed and the rights of the parties had to be adjudicated upon that basis and that the objection that there was a change of status as his legal heirs became small landowners companyld number prevail since the death of Kulwant Rai was subsequent to the making of the application.
It follows the earlier companymon judgment delivered by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal Nos.
1 and 2 Madan Lal and Rajender Kumar were benami and companysequently they had numberright or title in the lands.
It appears that it was companyceded by learned Counsel appearing for the appellant before the learned Judges that the findings reached by the learned Single Judge were unassailable.
357 359 of 1967 as they were all directed against the same judgment of the learned Single Judge.
A learned Single Judge by his judgment dated December 16, 1966 quashed the impugned order of the Assistant Collector, as affirmed in appeal by the Collector and in revision by the Financial Commissioner on the ground that once the transfers effected by Kulwant Rai were ignored, the changed situation brought about by the death of the big landowner had to be taken into account in determining the right of the tenant under Section 18 1 of the Act when as a result of inheritance his legal heirs became small landowners.
In that view of the matter, the learned Judges expressed numberopinion on the question whether the claim of a tenant under Section 18 1 of the Act companyld be repeated by original landowner subsequent to the making of the application when by reason of inheritance or survivorship his heirs became small landowners.
1 and 2, the transferees of Kulwant Rai, were mere benamidars as also granted them a decree for possession thereof.
2 and of the remaining 39 bighas 5 biswas of land in favour of his maternal uncle Rajender Kumar, respondent No.
1 and 2, were mere benamidars of Kulwant Rai and further that numbertitle passed in them as the alleged sales were number effected by any registered instrument as required by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, with companysequential prayer for delivery of possession of lands to them.
2 Rajender Kumar alone, the Assistant Collector had numberjurisdiction to make an order for the purchase of land belonging to respondent No.
3 to 14, the legal heirs of Kulwant Rai had in the meanwhile brought a suit on January 6, 1967 for declaration that they were the owners of the lands in dispute in as much as the transferees Madan Lal and Rajender Kumar, respondent Nos.
3 to 14 being the legal heirs of Kulwant Rai made an application to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings and that application of theirs was allowed by the Assistant Collector on November 8, 1960.
P. Sen, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
80 of 1967 dated September 9, 1969 upholding the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated July 27, 1967.
