K. Kannan - (1.) ALL the writ petitions are at the instance of two Companies, one Society and a private individual. The impugned orders are passed under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1972 treating the individual as owner of all the properties. The challenge comes through the Societies, Companies and the individual each claiming that notice has been issued only to the private individual and not to the Companies and Societies and it is bad in the eye of law.
(2.) THE impugned orders ought to be quashed for the simple reason that the authority who had passed the orders failed to only grapple with the fundamental meaning of the expression "person" in the eye of law. THE order challenged is issued by the authorities constituted CWP No. 3709 of 2010 3 CWP Nos.974,975 and 976 of 2011 under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. THE impugned notice issued by the Financial Commissioner in revision filed by the present petitioner was that a rejection of a claim by the petitioner that the surplus area proceedings could not be initiated treating him to be the owner of the entire extent of properties. THE petitioner would rely on the revenue entries themselves which showed that the properties in the Village Karoran and Nada stood not merely in his name but in the names of certain Societies and Companies namely Dashmesh Educational Society, WWICS and WWICS Pvt Ltd. The authorities were rejecting this contention on the ground that on a notice issued to the petitioner to furnish the memorandum of Association, they had not been given the copies of the document and the investigation revealed that all the properties were under the control of the petitioner only. It is one thing for a government to issue notice to Companies and find that the Companies are sham entities and the true owner is only the petitioner but another thing to assume that even without serving notices to the Companies and the Society that the petitioner must show that the property does not belong to him and that the properties belong to Companies. The legal presumption is always different. It shall be assumed that ownership rests in persons in whose name the property stand and any person asserting that the ostensible owner is not true owner shall prove the same. If in this case, all the properties do not stand in the name of the petitioner and they stand in the name of the Society and the Companies, notice shall be sent to the Society and Companies before action could be initiated that the holdings of properties were attracted to the provisions of Land Reforms Act, 1972.
(3.) THE government must realize that any finding that CWP No. 3709 of 2010 he properties held in the names of the Societies and Companies are also the properties of the petitioner shall be an unnecessary waste of time, for, a finding rendered in their absence without proper notice will ultimately become futile and they would vulnerable for a challenge at the instance of the Companies and the society. THE appropriate procedure shall be to issue notice to all the persons in whose names the properties stand registered in the revenue records and then take a finding relating to the respective ownership of the property and determine the issue of surplus area as provided under the Act. THE proceedings cannot go on in the manner undertaken and they shall immediately cease. THE impugned orders are per se illegal. Definition of a person under Section 3(10) includes also a Company. Companies can function only through human agencies. Prima facie, such a human agency could not be considered as an owner in the eye of law in relation to property held by the Company. Government shall take appropriate action after due notice in the manner referred to above. THE impugned orders Annexure P-5, P-9 and P-10 are quashed but with liberty to the government to issue appropriate notice and take action in accordance with law.;