Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shivdev Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 12 September, 2013
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
CWP No. 7687 of 1989 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP. No. 7687 of 1989
Date of decision : 02.09.2013
Shivdev Singh & ors.
....Petitioners
V/s
State of Punjab & ors.
....Respondents
BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. S.S. Swaich, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mrs. Anu Pal, AAG Pb.
Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate for respondents no. 5 to 8.
RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL)
Instant petition has been filed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders Annexure P1 & P3 on the ground that same have been passed by the Authority without any jurisdiction.
Brief factual background of the case is that petitioners claim to be tenants of big landowner Satinder Singh (respondent no. 3 herein). Originally land was owned by Umrao Singh in Tehsil Kharar district Ropar, Patti, Jagadhri & Ambala. Umrao Singh filed a declaration on 17.06.1958 before Collector, Ropar. The Collector decided the issue on 22.07.1960 and declared 270 standard acres and 10¼ units as surplus. As the land of Umrao Singh fell in more than one Tehsil, case was sent to Special Collector, Chandigarh for decision afresh. Special Collector, Chandigarh decided the matter Kumar Ajay 2013.09.13 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 7687 of 1989 2 on 17.02.1964. Umrao Singh filed an appeal before Commissioner, Ambala Division who set-aside the order of Special Collector on 06.07.1966 and remanded the case to Special Collector for decision afresh. In the meantime, post of Special Collector was abolished and case was sent to Collector, Kharar. Umrao Singh died on 18.04.1978. His only legal representative, Satinder Singh was afforded opportunity to select his permissible area. After Satinder Singh selected the permissible area, thereafter, Collector Agrarian passed order dated 20.01.1984, Annexure P1 declaring 9.52 hectares as surplus area. Petitioners claim that they were inducted as tenants over the land by Satinder Singh in the year 1980. The Financial Commissioner Revenue Punjab exercising powers under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act and section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act took suo-moto notice and set-aside the order, Annexure P1 on the ground that Collector had no power to decide the issue. As the land fell in the States of Punjab and Haryana, Special Collector was the competent authority to decide the question of surplus area. Satinder Singh, thereafter, preferred a review application before the Financial Commissioner. Same was decided on 09.05.1988 vide order, Annexure P3. Operative part of the order reads as under:-
"6. In the light of the above discussion, I have reconsidered my earlier order dated 28.9.1987 by which the case had been remanded to the District Collector, Ropar for determining the surplus area or big landowner after clubbing his holdings both in the States of Punjab and Haryana. Under the 1972 Act, the jurisdiction of a Kumar Ajay Collector under the Act is limited to land situated in 2013.09.13 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 7687 of 1989 3 Punjab State. The mere absence of a specific notification empowering the Collector, Ropar (Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Ropar) as Special Collector should not be allowed to vitiate orders which are otherwise in accordance with the provisions of the Act, as per the enunciation contained in the ruling reported in AIR 1981 S.C. 1473. As laid down in the ruling or the SC reported in AIR 1987 SC 1654 the latest law has to be applied while disposing of pending proceedings.
7. In view of my above discussion, I hereby accept this review petition, revise my order dated the 28th September, 1987 and uphold that of the Collector (Agrarian) Rupnagar, dated the 20th January, 1984. "
Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the orders, Annexures P1 & P3. According to him, petitioners were inducted as tenants on the suit land by respondent no. 3. However, at the time order, Annexure P1 was passed, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the tenants. According to him, order Annexure P1 is without any jurisdiction as only Special Collector was authorized to decide the question of surplus area. He has further emphasized that review application filed by respondent- Satinder Singh has been erroneously allowed by the Financial Commissioner without appreciating that Collector (Agrarian), Rupnagar had no jurisdiction to decide the matter.
Learned State counsel has opposed the plea. According to her, order Annexure P1 was appealable. Petitioners never availed the remedy available to them under the law. She asserts that orders, Annexures P1 & P3 are perfectly valid and in accordance with law. She submits that plea of the petitioners that Kumar Ajay 2013.09.13 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 7687 of 1989 4 they were not granted opportunity of hearing is without any substance as proclamation was carried out in the concerned villages of 26.10.1983. Default, if any, for not appearing before the Collector was on the part of the petitioners. She submits that 3 out of 4 petitioners were never tenants in khasra numbers as mentioned in the writ petition.
Mr. Munjal, learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 5 to 8 contends that big landowner had not reserved any right over the land falling in State of Haryana. Thus, Collector was competent to decide the issue of surplus area. He further pointed out that on the appointed day i.e. 24.01.1971, petitioners were not tenants in the land. Thus, there was no necessity of serving notice on them all.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Admittedly, Umrao Singh was the big landowner owning land in Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar & Patti in Punjab. He also owned land in State of Haryana i.e. Jagadhari and Ambala. He declared his surplus area on 17.06.1958. The Collector, Ropar declared 270 standard acres and 10¼ units as surplus area. Thereafter, case was sent to Special Collector, Chandigarh for decision afresh who decided the case on 17.12.1964. Umrao Singh, thereafter, filed an appeal before Commissioner, Ambala Division who set-aside the order passed by Special Collector and remanded the case to same authority for decision afresh. Meanwhile, post of Special Collector was abolished and matter was sent to Collector, Kharar for decision. The case ultimately came up before Collector, Kumar Ajay 2013.09.13 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 7687 of 1989 5 Ropar who passed order, dated 20.01.1984, Annexure P1. The Collector, Ropar decided all issues raised before him. As the big land owner did not reserve any area in the villages of Haryana, the case was decided as regards land situated in the State of Punjab. Later suo-moto notice taken by Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab. He set-aside the order, Annexure P1 on the ground that inter state surplus cases were to be decided by Special Collector, Agrarian and Collector, Agrarian Rupnagar was not vested with the powers of Special Collector. A review application was filed by Satinder Singh -respondent no. 3 before Financial Commissioner for review of order dated 28.09.1987, Annexure P2. He came to the conclusion that mere absence of a specific notification empowering the Collector, Ropar to decide State surplus area matter would not vitiate the orders which were otherwise in accordance with law. He, thus, reviewed his order, Annexure P2 and restored, Annexure P1 passed by the Collector. On due consideration of the matter, I do not find any infirmity with the same. The stand of the State before this court is that proclamation as required under the law was made before the Collector passed order dated 20.01.1984, Annexure P1. No rejoinder has been filed to rebut this contention of the State. Thus, the plea that petitioners were not granted any opportunity of hearing is without any basis. This apart, petitioners appeared before the Financial Commissioner at the stage review application filed by respondent no. 3 were heard. As respondent no. 3-Satinder Singh never reserved any area in the State of Haryana, the Collector decided the issue of surplus area pertaining to land Kumar Ajay 2013.09.13 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 7687 of 1989 6 situated in the State of Punjab only. It appears that all the 3 villages referred to in the order, Annexure P1 were in district Ropar at the relevant time. There is, thus, no ground to interfere in writ jurisdiction of this court. Dismissed.
September 02, 2013 (RAJAN GUPTA)
Ajay JUDGE
Kumar Ajay
2013.09.13 16:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document