- (1.) THIS Letters Patent appeal under Clause 10 challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17th March, 1967, by which a writ petition filed by the appellants under Art. 226 of the Constitution, was dismissed.
(2.) THE admitted facts are that Harchand Singh, father of the appellants, was at one time the owner of the entire village of Nanahri in Hissar district. This village was acquired by the Government for the settlement of displaced persons from Bhakra reservoir area. A compensation of over two lacs of rupees was awarded on the 31st of August, 1956 to the appellants for the land acquired from their father. The appellants thus became land less persons. They then purchased an area of 377 Bighas and 9 Biswas for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/ - from their father's sister, Dhan Kaur on 22nd March, 1958. It is stated that collaterals of Dhan Kaur filed a suit for pre -emption which was decreed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court and it was only ultimately in this Court that in Regular Second Appeal No. 62 of 1960 decided on 18th January, 1961, the suit was dismissed in view of the amendment of the Punjab Pre -emption Act by Act 10 of 1960. Dhan Kaur, as a big landowner had to furnish a return under Section 32 -F of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Pepsu Act). But it is stated that since she had no interest left in the matter, she did not furnish any return and consequently the Collector respondent No. 3 acting under Section 32 -D of the Pepsu Act, on 26th February, 1960, finally declared an area of 27.83 standard acres in the hands of the respondent No. 4 as surplus. It is common case of the parties that no notice was given of these proceedings under Section 32 -D of the Pepsu Act to the appellants who had purchased the land in 1958. According to the appellants they came to know about this declaration of the surplus area on 3rd January, 1963, when proceedings for the allotment of the surplus area were started. Their appeal and revision filed before the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, respectively met with no success. So they filed a writ out of which this appeal has arisen. Inter alia the points taken up by them were that they were interested persons for the declaration of the area as surplus; that they were shown as purchasers in the revenue records after 1958; that under Section 32 -FF of the Pepsu Act they being land less persons, the alienation in their favour, which was obviously made in a bona fide manner as is apparent from the fact of a suit having been filed by the collaterals of Dhan Kaur was saved and that, in any case, under the provision to Section 32 -FF of the said Act they were entitled to receive back from the transferor the advantage taken by her, namely, a sum of Rupees 50,000/ - which was paid to her as the consideration. It was found as a fact that no notice was given, but at the same time it was held that in view of the fact that the appellants were relations of the transferor within the prescribed degree they could not take advantage of the exception given in Section 32 -FF and consequently the Government could ignore such a transfer. On this ground the writ petition was dismissed. On behalf of the appellants it was urged, and not without force, that if the appellants were entitled to a notice, the lack of such a notice would vitiate the proceedings to make them null and void, and it is not for the Courts to decide whether what they had to urge would have found favour with the authority concerned. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that so far as the land less persons were concerned, even if they were relations within the prescribed degree, such a transfer would be valid under Section 32 -FF and that in any case, if they had been given a hearing, they could have claimed the price that they had paid to the vendor. However, on the other side, the contention raised on behalf of the State was that, as held by a Full Bench of this Court in Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, 1966 Cur LJ 165=(AIR 1967 Punj 198)(FB) transferees were not interested parties to whom notice had to be given while determining the surplus area. Reliance is placed on paragraph 14 of the judgment which is to the following effect: 'The last contention of Mr. Tuli is that no notice was issued to the donees before the surplus area was determined. Section 32 -FF provides that no transfers or other disposition of land after 21st August, 1956 shall affect the right of the State Government, under this Act, to the surplus area to which it would be entitled, but for transfer or disposition. The net result of this provision is that the transfers have to be ignored. If the transfers are ignored, no question of any notice to the transferees arises. The transferred property will not vest in the transferees and for the purposes of the Act, they will not be deemed to be the owners of the property. Therefore, the contention, that the non -giving of notice to the transferees violates the principles of natural justice, has no substance...................................'
(3.) THAT was a case of a donor and the other question, whether the transferee was a land less person and was or was not covered by exception provided under Section 32 -FF did not come for consideration. This Full Bench judgment was referred to by Narula, J. in Bhool Chand v. State of Punjab, 1969 Rev LR 70 (Punj). That was a case under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. Relying upon two judgments of Shamsher Bahadur J. in Ghamandi Ram. v. Financial Commr. (1965) 44 Lah LT 31 and Indraj Singh v. State of Punjab (1966) 45 Lah LT 176, it was held that under the Act and the Rules it was necessary for the Collector, while taking proceedings for declaring surplus area, to give notice to the transferees from the landowner whose surplus area was dealt with. Referring to the Full Bench case of Pritam Singh, 1966 Cur LJ 165=(AIR 1967 Punj 198)(FB) it was observed as follows: '.............................. Full Bench judgment.................. relates to the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (13 of 1955) and not the Punjab Act and that the distinction in the two Acts in this respect is apparent from the discussion of the relevant provisions of the Pepsu Act in paragraph 14 of the Full Bench judgment in 1966 Cur LJ 165=(AIR 1967 Punj 198)(FB).............. The main difference between the two Acts is that whereas the landowner is divested of his surplus area under the Pepsu Act, he remains the owner under the Punjab Act and merely his right to cultivate the said land himself or to settle his own tenants thereupon is taken away from the landowner. The settled law in respect of second point (with regard to the notice), therefore, is that in view of the specific provisions of Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956, and form 'D' attached to the rules, it is necessary that a notice should be given to the transferees before deciding the surplus area of the transferor as the transferees are persons interested in the matter'. ;