Sikander Singh and anr. Vs. State of Punjab and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- ordert.h.b. chalapathi, j. 1. the petitioners are the sons of one tara singh. the said tara singh sold 75 kanals 11 marlas of land in village daudhar to one ram singh vide sale deed dated 14.6.1958. then the petitioners who are the sons of tara singh filed a pre-emption suit against the vendee ram singh. the said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioners on 9.7.1959. the petitioners deposited the pre-emption money in terms of the decree. the names of the petitioners were also located in the revenue records and jamabandi. the petitioners took possession of the land and the petitioners thus are deemed to be in physical possession of the land from 9.7.1959. the said land was not utilised by the government at any time. on july 13, 1974, the collector agrarian, moga allotted the land to one mohan singh without any notice to the petitioners while making allotment. thereupon the petitioners filed an appeal before the commissioner, ferozepur division who set-aside the order of allotment dated july 13, 1974, vide order dated 13.7.1974. thereafter, the 2nd respondent, without any notice to the petitioners and without their knowledge entered mutation of the land in the name of the government on 14.2.1976. thereafter, the petitioners came to india with the land which was declared as surplus land of tara singh in september 1961, under the provisions of punjab security of land tenures act, 1963 and therefore the land being allotted under the utilization scheme. the petitioners were not given any notice and they were deprived of their right of hearing. as the land was the subject matter of preemption suit, the same cannot be utilised under the instructions of the government issued on 6.3.1967. the land was purchased by ram singh long prior to 6.3.1967 and the land belonging to tara singh was the subject matter of the pre-emption suit and by virtue of decree in the pre-emption suit, the petitioners became its owners and therefore, the same cannot be included in the surplus area of tara singh and it cannot therefore, be utilised under the provisions of punjab security of land tenures act and the rules made thereunder. aggrieved by the orders of allotment, the petitioners filed revisions to the financial commissioner, punjab who dismissed the revision petitions of the petitioners by his order dated 31.7.1980. this writ petition is filed to quash the said orders passed of the additional commissioner, ferozepur division dated 21.2.1978 and orders of the financial commissioner, taxation, punjab dated 31.7.1980.2. there is no dispute that the land in dispute originally belongs to tara singh, father of the petitioners. the said tara singh sold the disputed land to one ram singh on 14.6.1958 against registered sale deed. there is also no dispute that the petitioners filed a suit for pre-emption and the suit was decreed on 9.7.1959. there is nothing on record to show that the sale deed in favour of ram singh and the decree in pre-emption suit was collusive and not bonafide. therefore, it is to be taken that tara singh sold the property to ram singh and the sons of tara singh obtained the property from ram singh who is a stranger to the family by virtue of decree in the pre-emption suit. it has been held in harpal singh v. state of punjab, 1970 p.l.j. 159 as follows:-' on principle if a valid sale of land has been made by the original land-owner which is protected by the exceptions given in section 32-ff, the property in the land passes from the date of the registration. from the date of registration the original landowner is divested of all rights, title and interest in the land and if such a sale is protected under section 32-ff, the land in question would go out of the ambit of its liability to be declared surplus qua the original landowner. once it is so held that the original transfer to the vendee is valid it appears plain to us that the subsequent divesting of the vendee by the superior right of the pre-emptor would not for a second time bring the land again within the scope and mischief of the confiscatory provision under section 32-ff. if once a valid title has accrued to the vendee, his subsequent divesting at the latter point of time by operation of law in pursuance of a decree of pre-emption, cannot by any stretching of legal fictions be deemed to be a transfer by the original landowner in favour of the prescribed relations under the rules framed under the pepsu tenancy act and agricultural lands act, 1955.' the said decision was followed by another bench of this court in chatter singh v. financial commissioner, 1970 p.l.j. 487 a case arising out of the punjab security of land tenures act. therefore, in view of the above decision of this court. i am of the opinion that the land which was the subject matter of pre-emption suit and which was acquired by the petitioners by virtue of the decree in the pre-emption suit, it cannot be included in the surplus area of tara singh. the facts in the present case are similar to the facts in gutter singh's case (1970) p.l.j. 487, wherein it is clearly held that the character of the acquisition is not that of the acquisition of land of their father but the acquisition of land belonging to a stranger. i accordingly allow the writ petition and quash the impugned orders passed by respondents 1 to 3, against the petitioners. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

1. The petitioners are the sons of one Tara Singh. The said Tara Singh sold 75 kanals 11 marlas of land in village Daudhar to one Ram Singh vide sale deed dated 14.6.1958. Then the petitioners who are the sons of Tara Singh filed a pre-emption suit against the vendee Ram Singh. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioners on 9.7.1959. The petitioners deposited the pre-emption money in terms of the decree. The names of the petitioners were also located in the revenue records and jamabandi. The petitioners took possession of the land and the petitioners thus are deemed to be in physical possession of the land from 9.7.1959. The said land was not utilised by the Government at any time. On July 13, 1974, the Collector Agrarian, Moga allotted the land to one Mohan Singh without any notice to the petitioners while making allotment. Thereupon the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division who set-aside the order of allotment dated July 13, 1974, vide order dated 13.7.1974. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, without any notice to the petitioners and without their knowledge entered mutation of the land in the name of the Government on 14.2.1976. Thereafter, the petitioners came to India with the land which was declared as surplus land of Tara Singh in September 1961, under the provisions of Punjab Security of land Tenures Act, 1963 and therefore the land being allotted under the utilization scheme. The petitioners were not given any notice and they were deprived of their right of hearing. As the land was the subject matter of preemption suit, the same cannot be utilised under the instructions of the Government issued on 6.3.1967. The land was purchased by Ram Singh long prior to 6.3.1967 and the land belonging to Tara Singh was the subject matter of the pre-emption suit and by virtue of decree in the pre-emption suit, the petitioners became its owners and therefore, the same cannot be included in the surplus area of Tara Singh and it cannot therefore, be utilised under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and the rules made thereunder. Aggrieved by the orders of allotment, the petitioners filed revisions to the Financial Commissioner, Punjab who dismissed the revision petitions of the petitioners by his order dated 31.7.1980. This writ petition is filed to quash the said orders passed of the Additional Commissioner, Ferozepur Division dated 21.2.1978 and orders of the Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab dated 31.7.1980.

2. There is no dispute that the land in dispute originally belongs to Tara Singh, father of the petitioners. The said Tara Singh sold the disputed land to one Ram Singh on 14.6.1958 against registered sale deed. There is also no dispute that the petitioners filed a suit for pre-emption and the suit was decreed on 9.7.1959. There is nothing on record to show that the sale deed in favour of Ram Singh and the decree in pre-emption suit was collusive and not bonafide. Therefore, it is to be taken that Tara Singh sold the property to Ram Singh and the sons of Tara Singh obtained the property from Ram Singh who is a stranger to the family by virtue of decree in the pre-emption suit. It has been held in Harpal Singh v. State of Punjab, 1970 P.L.J. 159 as follows:-

' On principle if a valid sale of land has been made by the original land-owner which is protected by the exceptions given in section 32-FF, the property in the land passes from the date of the registration. From the date of registration the original landowner is divested of all rights, title and interest in the land and if such a sale is protected under section 32-FF, the land in question would go out of the ambit of its liability to be declared surplus qua the original landowner. Once it is so held that the original transfer to the vendee is valid it appears plain to us that the subsequent divesting of the vendee by the superior right of the pre-emptor would not for a second time bring the land again within the scope and mischief of the confiscatory provision under section 32-FF. If once a valid title has accrued to the vendee, his subsequent divesting at the latter point of time by operation of law in pursuance of a decree of pre-emption, cannot by any stretching of legal fictions be deemed to be a transfer by the original landowner in favour of the prescribed relations under the rules framed under the Pepsu Tenancy Act and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955.'

The said decision was followed by another Bench of this Court in Chatter Singh v. Financial Commissioner, 1970 P.L.J. 487 a case arising out of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. Therefore, in view of the above decision of this Court. I am of the opinion that the land which was the subject matter of pre-emption suit and which was acquired by the petitioners by virtue of the decree in the pre-emption suit, it cannot be included in the surplus area of Tara Singh. The facts in the present case are similar to the facts in Gutter Singh's case (1970) P.L.J. 487, wherein it is clearly held that the character of the acquisition is not that of the acquisition of land of their father but the acquisition of land belonging to a stranger. I accordingly allow the writ petition and quash the impugned orders passed by respondents 1 to 3, against the petitioners. No costs.