Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balbir Singh Etc. vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on 19 February, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1996)113PLR594
JUDGMENT G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. Petitioners, Balbir Singh and others, have challenged the legality of the orders passed respectively by the Collector (Agrarian), Ferozepur, on 22.11.1985; the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, on 24.9.1987; and the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab on 19.8.1993, under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. They have prayed for quashing of the impugned orders.
2. The petitioners are vendees of the land measuring 194 Kanals which they purchased from respondent No. 4 Smt. Satinder Kaur by six separate registered sale deeds dated 5.5.1975. At that time, the land was being cultivated by the tenants, namely, Sada Kaur, Manjit Kaur, Darshan Singh and Surjit Kaur. Even as on 24.1.971, the land was being cultivated by these four persons.
3. Proceedings were initiated against the land owner Smt. Surinder Kaur under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and land measuring 627Kanals 13-Marlas (equivalent to 10.2401 hectares) of first quality was declared surplus. The remaining land left with the land-owner was 39.0554 hectares of the first quality. After commencement of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1972 Act'), the Collector initiated proceedings against the land-owner. He passed order dated 29.12.1977 and after allowing 7 hectares as permissible area of the landowner declared remaining 32.0554 hectares of first quality land as surplus. Appeal filed by the land-owner was allowed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, vide his order dated 9..1979 and the case was remanded to the Collector (Agrarian), Ferozepur, for a fresh decision. Thereafter, notices were given to the landowner, tenants and the vendees. The present petitioners appeared before the respondent No. 3 through their counsel. Some of the vendees, who did not appear, were proceeded ex -parte. On behalf of the petitioners, it was argued that 194-Kanals of land purchased by them was under cultivating possession of the tenants as on the appointed day and also on 5.5.1975 and, therefore, that land be either declared as tenants' permissible area or it be included in the permissible area of the landowner. This plea came to be rejected by respondent No. 3 on the ground that the disputed land had already been declared surplus by the Collector (Agrarian), Ferozepur, on 28.12.1977 because the landowner had reserved some other area as her permissible area in Form-A. Relevant extract of the order (Annexure - 3) passed by the Collector on 22.11.1985 is as under:-
"The learned counsel for the Balbir Singh, Harjit Singh. Darshan Singh. Jaskaran Singh and Amarjit Singh vendees has argued that land measuring 194-Kanals comprising Khasra No. 449M/3/1 (6-4), 3/2(1-16), 4(8-0), 5(8-0), 6(8-0), 15(8-0), 448M/1 (8-0), 10(8-0), 11(8-0), 20(8-0), 449M/16(8-0), 25(8-0), 454M/5(8-0), 455M/l(8-0), 448M/21(8-0), 449M/7(8-0), 8(8-0), 13(8-0), 14(8-0), 17(8-0), 18(8-0), 23(8-0), 24(8-0), 25(2-0), 454M/3(8-0), 4(8-0), 448M/26(2-0), was under tenants from Rabi, 1970 and this land was purchased by the above persons vide separate sale deeds dated 5.5.1975 and they are in possession of this land. He has, therefore, prayed that this land be either declared as tenants 'permissible area or this land be included in the permissible area of the landowner. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for the vendees. Since the above persons have purchased the land on 5.5.1975, the same cannot be declared as tenants' permissible area. Further this land cannot be included in the permissible area of the landowner as this land had already been declared surplus by the Collector, Agrarian, Ferozepore, vide his order dated 28.12.1977 as the landowner had reserved some other area as her permissible are in form 'A'. I, therefore, reject the claim of these vendees."
4. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, and advanced the same argument which was made before the Collector. The Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur expressed his agreement with the finding recorded by the Collector and observed that the transactions effected by a big landowner between 24.1.1971 and 2.4.1973 can be excluded from the assessable area provided it is proved that they are bona fide and the transactions effected after 2.4.1973 have to be ignored. The Commissioner further observed that the sale deeds executed by the landowner in favour of the petitioners cannot be considered as bona fide and, therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to contend that this land should form part of the permissible area of the landowner. According to the Commissioner, the landowner never selected this land for being placed in her permissible area. The findings recorded by the Commissioner are as under:-
"Under the new Act transactions effected by a big landowner between 24.1.1971 and 2.4.1973 can be excluded from the assessable holding provided it is proved that they are bona fide. However, the transactions effected after 2.4.1974 have to be ignored under the law especially when they have been effected from surplus area. In the present case, the Collector has given a very finding that all transactions effected between 24.1.1971 and 2.4.1973 are bona fide sales which have been excluded from assessable holding of the landowner. As the appellants have purchased the land from a big landowner after 2.4.1973 they cannot be considered as bona fide vendees. I further agree with learned counsel for the landowner that the land in dispute cannot be placed in the permissible area of the landowner for the reason that it was never selected by him for being placed in his permissible area."
5. Dissatisfied with the order of the Commissioner, the petitioners ap- proached the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) through revision petition filed Under Section 18 of the 1972 Act. After considering the" rival contentions, the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) held that tenants had not challenged the finding recorded by the Collector and, therefore, the vendees, who purchased the land on 5.5.1975, were not entitled to question that finding. The Financial Commissioner further held that the land in dispute cannot be included in the permissible area of landowner because the landowner had never selected this land for being placed in her permissible area and the vendees who had entered into transaction with the landowner without finding out - whether it was a part of the landowner's permissible area or not, were not entitled to plead that the disputed land should be treated as part of the permissible area of the landowner.
6. Argument of Shri Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that if the sale deeds executed on 5.5.1975 were to be ignored, the land would have to be treated as tenants' permissible area because as on 24.1.971 the land was in the cultivating possession of the tenants and as the tenants had agreed to give up their right over the land in favour of the petitioners, the later cannot be deprived of the land on the ground that the same could not be treated as part of the landowner's permissible area. Learned counsel argued that even if the tenants did not challenge the findings recorded by the Collector (Agrarian), Ferozepur, the property would still constitute a part of the tenants' permissible area for the purpose of 1972 Act and the petitioners cannot be deprived of the possession of the property merely because the landowner did not include it in her permissible area. Shri Chopra placed reliance on the following decisions of this Court :-
1. Jagraj Singh v. State of Punjab, 1968 PLJ 59;
2. Prem Singh v. State of Punjab, 1981 PLJ 159;
3. Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1981 PLJ 302;
4. Bhag Singh v. State of Punjab, 1990(1) RLR 525;
5. Mala Singh v. Financial Commissioner and other, JT 1993(6) SC 303; and
6. Bahadur Ram v. State of Punjab, 1969 PLJ 372.
7. On the other hand, Mrs. Charu Tuli, learned Assistant Advocate General, argued that while determining the surplus area of the landowner, the Collector has rightly held that the petitioners are not entitled to take benefit of the sale deeds executed on 5.5.1975 because the land in dispute was under cultivation of the tenants and at the best it could be declared as tenants' permissible area with reference to the appointed day and the petitioners, who are vendees of the landowner, cannot take advantage of the illegal transfer effected by the landowner, after the appointed day. She further argued that this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Collector, the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferazepur, and the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab.
8. Before we examine the merit of the contention urged by Shri Chopra, we deem it proper to take note of the settled principles which govern the exercise of certiorari jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari can be issued when action taken by a quasi-judicial/judicial authority is found to be without jurisdiction or where violation of principles of natural justice is proved or where the order under challenge suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of record.
9. What is an error of law - is a ticklish issue. Whenever an order passed by the judicial or quasi-judicial authority is challenged on the ground that it suffers from an error of law, the Court has to examine - whether the findings recorded by the competent authority are based on evidence and are reasonably possible. It has also to be seen - whether correct principle of the law has been applied by the competent authority. Where the Court finds patent violation of law, an inference of error of law can easily be drawn. Patently wrong application of the settled principles of law may also give rise to an inference of error of law. However, an error of fact cannot be corrected by exercise of certiorari jurisdiction on the specious plea that the order under challenge suffers from an error of law. Similarly, the impugned order cannot be characterised as erroneous in law on the hypothesis that a different conclusion can be reached by the Court on re-appreciation of evidence and other material available on record. A finding of fact can be upset only when it is shown that the competent authority has failed to take note of some legally admissible evidence or where there is complete misreading of evidence. In this regard, we may make reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Syed Yakub v. Radha Krishan, A.I.R. 1964 SC 477.
10. Now it has to be seen - whether the impugned orders suffer from an error of law. Perusal of the extracts of the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur shows that both these authorities have applied their mind to the material placed on record and they have concurrently held that the petitioners, who are vendees of the landowner cannot take benefit of the sale deeds executed on 5.5.1975 and that the objection, if any, could only be raised by the tenants. Similar view has been expressed by respondent No. l. If the orders passed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are read in the light of the fact that the landowner did not select this parcel of land as a part of the landowner's permissible area by filing a declaration in Form-A, it becomes clear that the landowner did not intend to retain this parcel of land. Therefore, Shri Chopra is not right in contending that the disputed land should have been treated as part of the landowner's permissible area. To us, it appears that the landowner has made an attempt to find a convenient conduit to flout the provisions of law by not including the disputed land in her permissible area and then disposing of the same by way of sale. The petitioners may have suffered because of the mechanism applied by the landowner but they are to blame themselves for this situation. When the law has treated all the transfer of land effected after 2.4.1973 as void, the Court cannot infuse any life into such dead transactions and cannot interpret the law which would enable the landowner to bypass the salutary provision of the 1972 Act.
11. In our considered opinion, the impugned orders do not suffer from any error of law and they do not call for interference by this Court. We are also of the opinion that unless the landowner had indicated the land in dispute to be as a part of her permissible area by making a declaration in Form-A, prescribed in Rule 5 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1973, the same cannot be determined as landowner's permissible area and the petitioners do not have any locus standi to pray that the disputed land should be treated as landowner's permissible area.
12. The various decisions, on which Shri Chopra has placed reliance, do not in any manner help the petitioners. In Bahadur Ram v. State of Punjab (supra), this Court had interpreted Sections 2, 10-A and 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and held that it was the duty of the Collector to exclude the tenant's permissible area and also the landowner's permission area and that the tenant's permissible area is not affected by change of tenant if land remains with that or other tenant. In that case, the Court was not called upon to adjudicate a dispute where a transfer of land was effected after the appointed day and the landowner had not claimed the disputed land as his/her permissible area and the tenant had not challenged the order passed by the competent authority holding that the disputed land could not be treated as part of the tenant's permissible area.
13. In Jagraj v. State of Punjab (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that a tenant who was in occupation of the land on 21.1.1971 can assert claim qua landowner as tenant's permissible area under the 1972 Act and the tenant had a right to be heard in proceedings taken against the landowner under the provisions of the 1972 Act. We may again observe that the Court was not called upon to decide a case like the present one. The propositions of law that the tenant is an interested person and that the tenant is entitled to have a declaration about the tenant's permissible area do not have bearing on the issue raised in this case.
14. In Prem Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) and Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), this Court has considered the similar issue as was decided in Jagraj Singh's case (supra) and, therefore, these two judgments also do not apply to the case in hand. In Bhag Singh v. Financial Commissioner (supra), the Court was concerned with the provisions of the 1953 Act and it has been held that claim of the tenant for declaration of tenant's permissible area cannot be defeated by the landowner. This decision has no bearing on the point raised in this petition.
15. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed.