Jeev Kanwar (Smt.) Vs. State and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
constitution of india - article 226-land ceiling-land sold by 'b' which was not subject matter of ceiling proceedings-lineal descendant of common ancestor of 'b', namely 'v' whose land was in excess of ceiling limit, 'v' exercised the option in a way that land sold by 'b' also fell within ceiling limit-no partition ever took place-in the circumstances, purchasers from 'b' to approach appropriate authorities for appropriate relief. - motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]sections 163-a & 166; [r.m. lodha, shiv kumar sharma & ashok parihar, jj] award passed by tribunal under section 163-a nature of held, the award passed by tribunal under section 163-a of act under structured formula is a final award and once that award has been passed, no further award under chapter xii of m.v. act could be passed by the tribunal. the provisions contained in sections 163-a and 166 of act provide for two different modes but the two modes cannot simultaneously be invoked by the claimants. the claimant must opt/elect to go either for a proceeding under section 163-a or under section 166 of the m.v. act but not under both. the award under section 163-a is final and cannot be described as interim and no proceeding for compensation under section 166 can be undertaken once the award is declared under section 163-a. - subsequently that option was changed on behalf of jabbar singh in the year 1981. this changed option as accepted by the ceiling authority was challenged also by the present appellants unsuccessfully all through right up to the learned single judge. 11. in this background we find from the order of the learned single judge, that in the third part of para-4, the learned single judge, has himself clearly also observed, that if the petitioners have any right, title, or interest in the lands which are recorded in the name of the holder but sold by bhawani singh, and which were not the subject matter of ceiling proceedings of bhawani singh, they can approach the appropriate authority for suitable relief.n.p. gupta, j.1. these four appeals arise out of common judgment of the learned single judge. as a matter of fact five appeals were filed out of which one appeal no. 568 is reported to have been compromised between the parties, and accordingly it was withdrawn somewhere in 1998, and these four appeals survive.2. for properly understanding the controversy we may refer to the genealogy as given by mr. purohit that common ancestor was one sher singh, he had two sons being jabbar singh and vijay singh. vijay singh is said to have expired, and is alleged to have been survived by son bhawani singh.3. the appellants claim to be purchaser from bhawani singh, and claimed to have purchased various parcels of land by registered sale deed some-wherein march, 1968. it is a different story that the appellants are near and/or distant relations of bhawani singh.4. the controversy arose in the circumstances that ceiling proceedings were initiated separately against jabbar singh and bhawani singh. proceedings against jabbar singh were decided earlier and in those proceedings option was given to surrender certain lands as jabbar singh was found to be holding land in excess of the ceiling limit. subsequently that option was changed on behalf of jabbar singh in the year 1981. this changed option as accepted by the ceiling authority was challenged also by the present appellants unsuccessfully all through right up to the learned single judge.5. it was during pendency of the litigation in the revenue board, having been taken there by the appellants that ceiling proceedings were decided against bhawani singh in the year 1987. all the authorities below including the learned single judge found, that since the appellants claim to have purchased land from bhawani singh, and not from jabbar singh, therefore, they have no right to claim any say in the matter of any option given by jabbar singh. 6. the contention before us is, that the lands of sher singh devolved on jabbar singh and vijay singh/bhawani singh, and out of that specified khasra number of lands were purchased by the appellants, those very lands have been given in option by jabbar singh in ceiling proceeding against jabbar singh, for the purpose of surrendering as excess land to be surrendered, which could not be given.7. during the course of arguments it was specifically put, as to whether there had been formal partition of lands between legal representatives of sher singh, or not, and answer given by the learned counsel for the appellants was that no partition has taken place. however, it was claimed that the purchasers are in possession of the lands purchased under the sale deed.8. in the above situation, in our view, the only question is, that since the appellants claim to have purchased lands from bhawani singh, and in ceiling proceedings against bhawani singh he has not been found to be holding any excess land, therefore, whether the lands validly purchased by the appellants, even if given in option in ceiling proceedings against jabbar singh, can be resumed by the state, or not.9. obviously, since jabbar singh was one of the legal heirs of sher singh, and if partition had not taken place, and if the appellants had purchased undivided share of the land, as they claim, they are required to have appropriate legal proceedings for partition, and separate possession. in the garb of fact, that certain khasra numbers have been mentioned in the surrender option in the ceiling proceedings against jabbar singh, which khasra number may be comprised of land to the extent of half belonging to jabbar singh, and half of bhawani singh, appellants cannot be allowed to scuttle the ceiling proceeding, by claiming, that if the state wants to take separate possession of the half, state should take proceedings for partition etc.10. obviously so far as giving of the option in ceiling proceeding against jabbar singh is concerned, appellants have rightly been held to be not entitled to have any say. of course, at the same time if the appellants have any legitimate right, title, or interest over any property, which has been given in option for surrender in ceiling proceeding against jabbar singh, that option cannot have the effect of taking away the right, title or interest of the rightful owner.11. in this background we find from the order of the learned single judge, that in the third part of para-4, the learned single judge, has himself clearly also observed, that if the petitioners have any right, title, or interest in the lands which are recorded in the name of the holder but sold by bhawani singh, and which were not the subject matter of ceiling proceedings of bhawani singh, they can approach the appropriate authority for suitable relief.12. in view of the fact that said opportunity has already been granted to the appellants by the learned single judge, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order.the appeals are, therefore, dismissed.