Balraj Tuli, J. - (1.) Ajit Singh and Smt. Mohinder Kaur are landowners in villages Tungpain and Sultanwind, Tehsil and District Amritsar (hereinafter called the 'landowners'). They owned 106 standard acres 102/3 units of land at the commencement of the Punjab Security of Lard Tenures Act, 1953, (hereinafter called the 'Act'), out of which land measuring 43 standard acres 14 1/2 units was under an orchard. They sold away 31 standard acres 12/3 units of land to different vendees between 1955 and 1958, which sales were ignored by the Collector while determining their surplus area. A part of that land had been sold in favour of Gurbux Singh and Harbans Singh sons of Ch. Hari Singh (hereinafter called the 'appellants') on April 21, 1958. On June 16, 1958, the landowners submitted forms 'A' and 'E' to the Collector Surplus Area, selecting their permissible area. They did not include the land sold in favour of the appellants in their reserved area but showed it as surplus. On March 14, 1961, the Collector, Surplus Area, decided the case by ignoring the alienations made by the landowners and declared 25 standard acres 111/4 units of land as surplus. Against that order, the appellants filed an appeal which was accepted by the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur Division, on March 6, 1964, on the ground that the landowners had played a fraud on the appellants who had paid full price for the area purchased by them bona fide. He was of the opinion that the landowners should not have allowed the area purchased by the appellants to go to the surplus area and that the fact of sale of that area was not brought to the notice of the Collector. Consequently he hold that the area purchased by the appellants formed part of the permissible area of the landowners and directed that necessary adjustments should be made. The landowners filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner which was rejected. The landowners then filed C.W. No. 1008 of 1965 in this Court which was allowed by a learned Single Judge on September 15, 1972, and the orders of the Additional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner dated March 6, 1964 and November 24, 1964, respectively were quashed. The present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against that order of the learned Single Judge.
(2.) The Learned Counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the landowners should not have been allowed to play a fraud on the appellants and the land sold in their favour should have been included in the reserved area of the landowners. There is no provision in the Act empowering the Collector ro change the selection of area made by a landowner as his permissible or reserved area. There is also no jurisdiction in the Collector, dealing with the case, to determine whiny fraud had been committed by the landowner with any person by selling his land. The matter has been put beyond any dispute by a Division Bench of this Court in Mota Singh v/s. Financial Commissioner, Punjab, 1968 P.L.J. 338, wherein it was held : - - (1) The proposition that a landowner, who held land beyond the limit of 30 standard acres is, after the coming into force of the Act under a duty to disclose to the would be vendee that some of his land is likely to be declared surplus under the Act, is not warranted in law. (2) Where a landowner in the Punjab had sold some land from his holding to third parties and the question for determination and utilisation of his surplus area came up before the authorities set up under the Act, the land which had been transferred to the vendees would be included in surplus area and can be utilised for the resettlement of tenants but the permissible area selected by the landowner under Sec. 5 -B (1) of the Act cannot be included in surplus area.
(3.) A similar view was taken by another Division Bench in Darshan Singh v/s. State of Punjab, 1970 P.L.J. 662, wherein if was held : - - (1) Where the landowner has either reserved his permissible area under Sec. 5 or selected his permissible area under sub -section (1) of Sec. 5 -B and then he makes a transfer of the area which he has not reserved, there is no power in any authority under the Act to bring such transferred area within his reserved or selected area. It in such a case there is any allegation of deceit or mala fide or fraud on the part of such a landowner so far as the transfer to such a third party is concerned, then it may be that such a third party has other remedy under the law against such a landowner, but no such consideration can give power to the authorities under the statute to bring the transferred area within the reserved or selected permissible area of a landowner. (2) There is nothing in the Act which prohibits transfer of land with a landowner, and all that Sec. 10 -A provides is that certain transfers made after the coming into force of the Act, that is to say after April 15, 1953, shall be ignored for the purpose of utilisation of the surplus area of such an owner. So that if a landowner has more than his permissible area, there is nothing in the Act which bars him from transferring any part of his area. The validity of the transfer is not touched by any provision of the Act. All that Sec. 10 -A of the Act provides is that the transferred area will also be available for utilisation if found surplus with such a landowner.;