- (1.) The petitioners, who claim to be legal representatives of Mehtab Ram, alienee from the landowner, Bakhshi Ram challenges the order of the disposal of lands after the property was declared as surplus by the competent authority under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The basis of contention of the petitioners is that Bakhshi Ram was the original owner and he had sold certain portions of his holding on 07.04.1960 to the petitioners' father. The authorities had declared that Bakhshi Ram had owned property in excess of the ceiling area and the property sold by him had also been included as surplus. Consequently, when the allotments had been made in the year 1963-64, they had included the property over which the petitioners had a rightful claim. They would, therefore, challenge in particular the allotments made in favour of respondents 10 to 12 to an extent of 37 kanal-13 marlas on 05.07.1964 and 28 kanal-18 marlas was allotted to the 12th respondent on 02.11.1963.
(2.) The principal contest is entered by the allottees stating that the determination of surplus area by the competent authority was made on 12.11.1962 and the said order was challenged as late as in the year 1975. Responding to the contention that the petitioners had not been served with any notices, the counsel appearing on behalf of the allottees would contend that such a plea itself does not arise, for, no notice was required to be sent to persons whose names had not been entered in the revenue records. There had been no mutation of entries in favour of the petitioners or the petitioners' father pursuant to the alleged sale said to have been made by Bakhshi Ram on 07.04.1960. In any event, the petitioners had known about the proceedings and had not participated in the same by making any objections. It was also contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners themselves have been set up only by their brother Gehna Ram, who sought to assail the allotments in their favour and finding that such an attempt was foiled, he has set up his own brothers, namely, the petitioners, challenging the allotments.
(3.) The counsel for the petitioners states that as purchasers of the land, they were entitled to be heard and after the death of their father, the petitioners as legal heirs ought to have been served with notices. The learned counsel refers to the fact that the Collector failed to note that even if the mutation itself had been sanctioned subsequently, the entries in khasra girdawari for the year 1959-60 clearly showed the sale in favour of the petitioners' father Mehtab Ram. These entries were also relevant which the revenue officials must have taken note of and the Collector could not have taken a decision of surplus without issuing a notice on that basis. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents points out that it is exceedingly suspicious that these khasra girdawaris had been entered in the year 1959-60 itself. The entries could have become possible only after mutation had been effected consequent to a sale and when it is an admitted fact that the mutation had been made only in the year 1964, it was inconceivable as to how the khasra girdawari could have carried the entries in the year 1959-60. The learned counsel points out that the document had not been filed either before the Collector or the Commissioner and they are brought before this Court for the first time. The counsel for the petitioners, however, would make an issue on the fact that the Government has not denied the entries. I cannot accept the plea of the counsel that since the Government has not denied the same, it ought to be true. On the other hand, if the petitioners make a reference to the entries in khasra girdawari which is maintained by the State and when the correctness is contested by the private individual as a person affected, it cannot be expected that the State could deny the same. The private respondents' contest is that there has been some form of collusion with some officials in the State to allow for such a kind of correction. I cannot place my reliance on khasra girdawari in a situation where it was not referred to anywhere in the proceedings before the Collector or the Commissioner. I would also accept the plea that the entry itself could not have been possible without a mutation having been brought on the basis of the purchase. We have already observed that the mutation relating to sale was only subsequent to the order passed by the Collector in the year, 1962.;