V.K.JHANJI, J. - (1.) THIS shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 5899 of 1983 and Regular Second Appeal No. 2909 of 1997.
(2.) IN the writ petition, challenge is to order dated 14.10.1980 passed by Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala (for short the Commissioner) and order dated 24.8.1983 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab (for short the FC) whereby order of Commissioner was affirmed. In appeal, the Commissioner set aside order dated 23.6.1980 passed by the Collector Agrarian, Malerkotla (for short the Collector). In brief, the facts are that one Ranjit Singh owned agricultural land in village Inderpura Tehsil and District Patiala and Gobindpura Tehsil Malerkotla. He died in 1952. On his death, land was mutated in favour of two sons, namely, Sarup Singh and Sukhdev Singh. The present case relates to the surplus area proceedings initiated against Sarup Singh. Sarup Singh was minor and so surplus area proceedings against him were initiated through his mother, Kesro Devi. Special Collector, Punjab after considering the objections of the big landowner through his natural guardian, Smt. Kesro Devi, vide order dated 4.5.1960 declared 24.91 Standard Acres of land as surplus i.e. 11.91 Standard Acres of land in village Inderpura and 13 Standard Acres of land in village Gobindpura. Sarup Singh through his mother, again filed objections before the Special Collector who vide order dated 28.12.1962 rejected the same. Aggrieved by this order, the landowner filed an appeal before the Commissioner who vide order dated 26.3.1963 remanded the case to Special Collector for further examination and taking fresh decision. On remand, the Special Collector again rejected the objections and declared 24.91 standard acres of land as surplus. Dissatisfied, the landowner filed an appeal before the Commissioner who vide order dated 22.10.1963 partly accepted it and declared 24.18 standard acres of land as surplus. The landowner preferred revision before the FC who vide his order dated 29.5.1964 accepted the same and remanded the case to the Special Collector for fresh decision. Special Collector, Punjab, vide order dated 14.9.1964 again declared 24.18 standard acres of land as surplus. The landowner again went in appeal before the Commissioner but the same was rejected in May, 1965. Thereafter, no further proceedings were taken and order dated 14.9.1964 declaring 24.18 standard acres of land as surplus became final. After a lapse of 15 years, Smt. Kesro Devi, mother of Sarup Singh filed objection petition in June, 1980 before the Collector stating that her husband Ranjit Singh during his life time had allotted land to her by way of family settlement and in accordance with the said settlement, 1/2 share was given to her and 1/2 to her son Sarup Singh. She contended that she was not given an opportunity of being heard when surplus case of Sarup Singh was decided. So, she submitted that land belonging to her be taken out of the surplus pool. The Collector vide order dated 23.6.1980, without issuing notice to the State or persons likely to be affected, directed that the land in cultivating possession of Smt. Kesro Devi be taken out of surplus pool and treated as having been released. The short passed by the Collector reads as under :- "This petition has been filed by Ms. Kesro Devi widow of Ranjit Singh of village Gobindpura on the ground that land mentioned in the head note was allotted to her by her husband by way of family settlement during his life time along with her son i.e. half share was given to her and half to her son; that surplus area proceedings in this case were conducted without the knowledge and she was never given an opportunity of being heard. She has submitted that she even at present is in possession of the land and getting the same cultivated. She has submitted in her support Jamabandi for the year 1975-76 showing that she is in possession of the land and getting the same cultivated. 2. From the above, it is clear that Kesro Devi is in cultivating possession of the land and the land is, therefore, taken out of the surplus pool and be treated as having been released. Pronounced in open Court. June 23, 1980. Sd/- Collector Agrarian, Malerkotla." Respondents No. 4 to 6 who were holding the land as tenants, having felt aggrieved of order dated 23.6.1980 of the Collector, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner who vide his order dated 14.10.1980 held that order dated 23.6.1980 passed by the Collector amounts to review of order dated 14.9.1964 as it tended to reduce the surplus area as declared by the order of the Special Collector and there being no provision for review in the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, the order of the Collector is totally illegal. Apart from this, he found that the order of the Collector was based on wrong facts. The Commissioner noted that no mutation of transfer by way of family settlement was ever entered or sanctioned in favour of Smt. Kesro Devi over a period of 17 years i.e. after the surplus area of Sarup Singh was declared in the first instance. She never raised objection that the land owned by her had been included in the holdings of Sarup Singh. Even the Jamabandi which was relied upon by the Collector to hold the possession of Smt. Kesro Devi, the Commissioner found that there was hardly any Khasra number out of land in dispute which was in separate possession of Smt. Kesro Devi. He observed "it is unfortunate that an order which had the effect of reducing the surplus area, was found even without courtesy of notice to the State". He accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Collector. Smt. Kesro Devi preferred a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, who vide his order dated 24.8.1983 dismissed the same. The concluding paragraph of order dated 24.8.1983 reads as under :- "It is a case where landowner has availed of unmerited advantage through prolonged litigation. The landowner repeatedly filed appeals, revisions and then his mother filed review application before the Collector. The order of the Collector, as stated earlier, reviewing the order of his predecessor without permission of the superior authority is totally illegal. In fact, no new point has been raised by the petitioner and there is no deficiency in the order of the learned Commissioner. Therefore, the order of the learned Commissioner dated 14.10.1980 is upheld and order of the learned Collector dated 23.6.1980 is quashed and the revision petition is dismissed. To be communicated Chandigarh, dated the 24th August, 1983. Sd/- Commissioner, Appeals, Punjab." The present writ petition is against order dated 14.10.1980 passed by the Commissioner and order dated 24.8.1983 passed by the Commissioner, Punjab. 3. The only submission of learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that respondents No. 4 to 6 on whose appeal the Commissioner set aside the order date 14.10.1980 of the Collector, had no right to file an appeal because they were not party to the surplus area proceedings. He also contended that respondents No. 4 to 6 never made any application at any stage during the course of surplus area proceedings that they be associated with the surplus case of Ranjit Singh. Against this, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 4 to 6 submitted that respondents 4 to 6 had the locus standi to file an appeal because they being in continuous possession of land as tenants were bound to be affected by any order reducing the surplus area.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the record, I am of the view that the order of the Collector reducing surplus area without issuing notice to the State or persons, likely to be affected, was totally without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to point out any provision of law under which the Collector could review order dated 14.9.1964 vide which the land was declared surplus. Case of big landowner, Sarup Singh was being prosecuted by his mother Smt. Kesro Devi and throughout these proceedings, she never alleged that her husband Ranjit Singh during his life time had allotted the land to her. Her plea that land was allotted to her in family partition has, thus, rightly been disbelieved by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. It has come on record that Nazar Singh, respondent No. 6 had not been allotted any surplus land of any landowner any where and his rights and interest were bound to be affected by order dated 23.6.1980 passed by the Collector. He being one of the aggrieved persons, had a right to file an appeal against the order of the Collector as the order intended to reduce the surplus area of big landowner under whom Nazar Singh was holding land as a tenant.;