G.C. Mittal, J. - (1.) Chanan Singh, Respondent No. 4, was the owner of land which was declared surplus by order of the Collector dated 2nd July, 1960 (copy Annexure P1). Mutatioa of the surplus area in the hands of Chanan Singh was sanctioned on 22nd February, 1975 (copy Annexure P -2) in favour of the State all from that date the State of Punjab was shown as the owner of the land instead of Chanan Singh After the mutation was sanctioned in favour of the State, the Petitioners four son of Chanan Singh and three of his grandsons who were sons of his fifth deceased son, filed the present writ petition in this Court to challenge the order of declaration of surplus area, annexure P. 1, as also the sanctioning of mutation in favour of the State annexure P. 2 and the proceedings winch the State wanted to take in pursuance of mutation, annexure P. 2, to obtain possession of the surplus area. The basis for challenging the orders, annexure P -1 and P -2, is that they filed a suit against Chanan Singh before the Civil Court on the ground that they were owners in possession and Chanan Singh admitted them to the owners in possession with the result that a decree was passed in their favour on 15th April, 1971 (copy Annexure P. 3). After the decree was passed in their favour, their ownership was recorded vide mutation No. 2222, sanctioned on 27th February, 19/2 (copy annexure P. 4). Therefore, on this basis it was urged that neither the order of declaration of surplus area could stand nor the mutation, with the result that they could not be dispossessed.
(2.) After hearing the counsel for the parties, I do not find any substance in the writ petition. The order of declaration of surplus area, annexure P. 1, was binding on Chanan Singh. Sec. 32DD of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, provides that any judgment, decree or order of a court obtained, after the commencement of the Act and having the effect of diminishing the area of a person which could have been declared as his surplus area shall be ignored. In the present case the surplus area had been declared about eleven years before the passing of the decree and according to the statement of law, even if surplus area had not been declared, such a decree had to be ignored while declaring the surplus area. Therefore, the Petitioners cannot claim to have derived any benefit under the decree. A reading of the facts which culminated in decree, annexure P -3, shows that it was a collusive suit between father and sons simply to avoid the taking over of the possession of the surplus area by the State.
(3.) Counsel for the Petitioners wanted to place reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Gurdit Singh and Ors. v/s. State of Punjab and Ors., 1974 PLJ 374. A reading of the facts of that case would show that the same is clearly distinguishable from the present case. There in the year 1939, two grandsons of the owner inherited the land under a will and mutation thereof was sanctioned in their favour. Somewhere, in 1944, the father of the aforesaid two persons wanted to get a gun licence and in order to obtain such a licence he had to show that he was owner of certain property. To facilitate the same, a mutation was got sanctioned in favour of the father of those two persons which continued to show the ownership of the father till the Agrarian Law came into force In surplus area proceedings the land was considered to be of the two grandsons who had originally inherited the property and both of them were allowed permissible area. While doing so, the authorities, under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act had taken notice of a decree obtained by the aforesaid two persons against their father about their ownership. After Sec. 32DD was inserted in the Act, the authorities wanted to reopen the case and in view of Sec. 32DD reviewed the earlier orders and after ignoring the Civil Court decree in favour of the two heirs, considered the land in the hands of their father and declared surplus area. While doing so, no notice was issued to the heirs in whose favour orders had already been passed. On those facts, it was ruled by the Supreme Court that they were entitled to a hearing and Sec. 32DD of the Act could not be construed in such a way that the two grandsons who originally inherited the property in 1939 were deprived of saying that in fact they were the owners of the property and not not their father. In the present case, the Petitioners have not been able to show as to what is the basis of their claim which they laid in the suit to claim ownership of the property which culminated in a decree in their favour. It is not disputed that Chanan Singh had all along been owner of the property and at no point of time before the surplus area was declared on 2nd July, 1960, the Petitioners were recorded as owners thereof. Hence, such a collusive decree can never be given effect to nor would entitle the Petitioners to a hearing before the sanctioning of the mutation because that is the only proceeding which has taken place so far after they obtained the decree.;