Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Kaur Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc on 9 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117780
CWP-14466-1998 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
201 CWP-14466-1998
Date of Decision : 09.09.2024
RAM KAUR AND OTHERS .... PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
.... RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present :- Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Navyuggeet Brar, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. G.S.Bhullar, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. I.S.Brar, Advocate
for respondents No.4 to 7.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of order
dated 15.04.1998 (Annexure P/7) whereby Financial Commissioner
Appeals II, Punjab has restored order of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-
cum-Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot dated 03.08.1965.
2. The petitioners are legal heirs of Smt. Chandi. Before
noticing facts, it would be relevant to mention here that Smt. Chandi
passed away on 30.12.1987.
3. The Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot in terms of provisions of
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117780
Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (for short 'Pepsu Act')
proceeded to assess surplus land of Smt. Chandi and declared her 15.7
standard acres of land as surplus. She filed an appeal before the
Commissioner Patiala Division, Patiala who vide order dated 27.09.1960
accepted the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Collector for a
fresh decision. The Collector passed a fresh order dated 28.12.1960
whereby he formed the same opinion as was formed vide order dated
05.05.1960. The co-owner (Karam Singh) of Smt. Chandi moved an
application dated 18.06.1963 seeking review. The said application came
to be rejected by Collector vide order dated 18.07.1963. An appeal
against this order was filed by Karam Singh which was also dismissed
vide order dated 16.06.1964. Karam Singh filed revision petition before
the Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab, (for short 'FCT') who
vide order dated 23.02.1965 accepted revision and remanded the matter
back to the Collector with a direction that he will declare only such of the
land as surplus area as is in the actual possession of the big land owner
and if that is not adequate for the purpose then the remaining land may
also be taken over to make up the surplus area.
4. Pursuant to aforesaid order of FCT, the Collector (Agrarian),
Bathinda, Camp Faridkot vide order dated 03.08.1965 declared specific
khasra numbers of Smt. Chandi as surplus. Smt. Chandi filed appeal
before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala who accepted appeal
vide order dated 28.03.1966. The order of Collector dated 03.08.1965
came to be set aside and the matter was again remanded to the Collector
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117780
for a fresh decision. The Collector sat over the matter and passed a fresh
order on 20.03.1987 i.e. after the expiry of 21 years from the date of
remand. Smt. Chandi and her co-owner Naginder Singh again filed two
appeals before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur who
vide order dated 05.09.1988 rejected both the appeals and revision came
to be filed before the Financial Commissioner Appeals II, Punjab who by
impugned order dated 15.04.1988 restored order dated 03.08.1965 passed
by the Collector (Agrarian). The Financial Commissioner Appeals
strongly deprecated action of his department. He even observed that
different officers have made mockery of Agrarian Reform Laws with
their inertia, slothfulness, indifference and apathy.
5. Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate submits that Punjab Land
Reforms Act, 1972 (for short '1972 Act') came into force w.e.f.
24.01.1971. On the said date, land was in the possession of Smt. Chandi
and her co-owners. Section 32-E of Pepsu Act provides that land vests in
Government on the date of taking possession. The State even today has
not taken possession, thus, there was no question of possession of land
with State on 24.01.1971. The impugned order repeatedly has noted the
fact that possession of land was not taken under Pepsu Act and 1972 Act
has come into force.
6. Mr. G.S.Bhullar, AAG, Punjab submits that the petitioners
had played with the Agrarian Reform Laws. They kept on filing appeals
one after another. Resultantly, authorities could not take possession of
surplus land under Pepsu Act. As proceedings were pending under Pepsu
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117780
Act, the competent authority did not take action under 1972 Act.
7. I have heard the arguments of counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
8. The conceded position emerging from record is that the
Collector at the first instance passed order dated 05.05.1960 whereby
15.71 standard acres of land was declared surplus. Smt. Chandi was
owner of surplus land. She and her co-owners one after another filed
appeals/revisions before appellate/revisionary authorities. The matter
time to time came to be remanded by appellate authorities. 2nd time, the
matter was remanded by the appellate authority on 28.03.1961 and the
Collector passed a fresh order after 21 years i.e. on 20.03.1987. In the
interregnum, 1972 Act came into force. The authorities did not pass
order under 1972 Act whereas continued to pass order under Pepsu Act.
9. A five-judge Bench of Supreme Court in Ujjagar Singh
(dead) by LRs vs. Collector, Bhathinda and another, (1996) 5 SCC 14
has considered scope of Pepsu Act vis-à-vis 1972 Act. The Court has
held that as per Section 32-E and 32-F of Pepsu Act, land which has been
declared as surplus shall be deemed to be surplus when State Government
takes over possession of the land. If possession of any surplus area of
landowner has not been taken by or on behalf of the State Government, it
shall not be deemed that such surplus area has been acquired and title of
the land owner has been extinguished. The relevant extracts of the
judgment are reproduced as below :
"3. Section 3 of the Pepsu Act fixed the permissible limit for
holding the land at thirty standard acres. Sub-section (2) of
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117780
CWP-14466-1998 5
Section 3 provided the procedure for computing the
permissible limit under sub-section (1) of Section 3. In view
of Section 5 every landowner owning land exceeding thirty
standard acres was entitled to select for personal cultivation
from the land held by him as a landowner which was to be
reserved for his personal cultivation. Section 6 required the
Collector to notify in such form and manner as may be
prescribed the particulars of all lands so reserved for
personal cultivation of the landowner concerned under
Section 5 aforesaid. Section 32-E which is relevant
provided:
"32-E. Vesting of surplus area in the State
Government.--Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in any law, custom or usage for the
time being in force, and subject to the provisions of
Chapter IV, as from the date on which the final
statement in respect of a landowner or tenant is
published in the Official Gazette, then--
(a) in the case of the surplus area of a landowner, or
in the case of the surplus area of a tenant which is not
included within the permissible limit of the landowner,
such area shall, on the date on which possession
thereof is taken by or on behalf of the State
Government, be deemed to have been acquired by the
State Government for a public purpose and all rights,
title and interest including the contingent interest, if
any, recognised by any law, custom or usage for the
time being in force of all persons in such land shall be
extinguished, and such rights, title and interest shall
vest in the State Government free from encumbrances
created by any person; and
(b) in the case of the surplus area of a tenant which is
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117780
CWP-14466-1998 6
included within the permissible limit of the landowner,
the rights and interest of the tenant in such area shall
stand terminated:
Provided that, for the purposes of clause (a),
where any land falling within the surplus area is
mortgaged with possession, only the mortgage rights
shall vest in the State Government."
Section 32-F enabled the Collector to take possession of the
surplus area so declared:
"32-F. Power to take possession of surplus area.--(1)
The Collector may by order in writing at any time
after the date on which the final statement in respect
of a landowner or tenant is published in the Official
Gazette, direct the landowner or the tenant or any
other person in possession thereof within ten days of
the service of the order on him to such person as may
be specified in the order.
(2) If the landowner or the tenant or any other person
in possession of the surplus area refuses or fails
without reasonable cause to comply with the order
made under sub-section (1), the Collector may take
possession of the surplus area and may for that
purpose use such force as may be necessary."
On a plain reading of clause (a) of Section 32-E aforesaid it
appears that in case any surplus area of the landowner
which is not included within the permissible limit of such
landowner "such area shall, on the date on which possession
thereof is taken by or on behalf of the State Government, be
deemed to have been acquired" by the State Government for
public purpose and all rights, title and interest of all persons
in such land shall be extinguished and such rights, title and
interest shall vest in the State Government free from
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117780
encumbrances. In other words, in view of the aforesaid
statutory provision, only when the possession of the land
which has been declared as surplus area is taken over by the
State Government, then only it shall be deemed that such
surplus area has been acquired by the State Government and
all rights, title and interest of person concerned in such land
are extinguished and vest in the State Government. As such if
the possession of any surplus area of landowner has not
been taken by or on behalf of the State Government, it shall
not be deemed that such surplus area has been acquired and
title of the landowner has been extinguished.
4. The stand of the appellant is that in view of the
admitted position that the possession of the land which had
been declared surplus in the year 1961-62 under the Pepsu
Act had never been taken till the Punjab Act came into force
in the year 1973 and as the appellant continued in
possession thereof throughout, the respondent-authorities or
the State Government was not entitled to take possession of
such surplus area after the coming into force of the Punjab
Act and the ceiling has to be determined afresh in
accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Act. It appears
that there is no dispute that when the Punjab Act came into
force, the appellant had four adult sons and if the ceiling is
fixed afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab
Act, the appellant had no surplus land."
10. The Supreme Court while passing aforesaid order has noted
various judgments including a full Bench judgment of this Court in
Ranjit Ram vs. Financial Commissioner Revenue, AIR 1981 P&H 313.
11. The impugned order has been passed in the wake of Pepsu
Act whereas on account of non-taking over possession of surplus land,
the proceedings could not continue after commencement of 1972 Act.
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117780
The authorities were bound to proceed under 1972 Act. The impugned
order deserves to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The respondent
is at liberty to proceed against petitioners and their legal heirs in
accordance with Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972.
12. Disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
09.09.2024
anju
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
