V.K.BALI, J. - (1.) CONFLICT interests of tenants for allotment of land, be it under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act or the Utilisation Scheme under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and rules framed thereunder, on the one hand and the vendees of big land owner for retention of land purchased by them irrespective of it having been declared surplus under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, on the other hand, have brought them to this Court in the present Letters Patent Appeal after a marathon legal battle running over a period of two decades. Before, however, the crucial points that have been advanced by learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective contentions are noticed, it shall be useful to briefly trace the admitted and proved facts culminating into present appeal.
(2.) SMT . Rukmani Devi, a displaced person from the areas now forming part of west Pakistan, in lieu of land abandoned by her there, was alloted 6 standard acres and 28 units of land in district Sirsa. Her husband, Suraj Bhan, who was land owner in his own right, died in 1955. Rukmani Devi succeeded to the estate left by her husband which, insofar as present case is concerned, was agricultural land measuring 38 standard acres and 70 units equivalent to 124. 56 ordinary acres in village Khiraika. By virtue of a sale deed executed and registered in 1958, she sold 28 biggas 2 biswas of land to her daughter - Saraswati Devi, mutation with regard to which was sanctioned on January 17,1960. In 1958 she selected her permissible are and duly filled in Form - E prescribed under the Rules framed by virtue of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. Saraswati Devi, daughter of the original land owner Rukmani Devi, intestate to sold the land purchased by her to respondents herein, at whose instance writ petition was filed in this Court resulting into impugned judgment. The Collector (Surplus Area) commenced proceedings with a view to determine the land surplus in the hands of Rukmani Devi in the year 1961 and vide orders dated November 30, 1961 expressed his opinion that since Rukmani Devi was entitled to 50 standard acres being a displaced person and had in her ownership a total land measuring 44 standard acres 98 units, no area in her hands could be declared surplus. However, after obtaining necessary permission from the Commissioner, he reviewed the aforesaid order dated November 30, 1961 and declared 13 standard acres and 58 units as surplus in the hands of land owner. It was held that Rukmani Devi was entitled to 30 standard acres of land and not 50 standard acres. Meanwhile, on the basis of earlier order of 1961, vide which Rukmani Devi was held to be small land owner, an eviction petition was filed by her against Ladhu Ram tenant which was allowed in 1962. Ladhu Ram, being aggrieved of the orders aforesaid carried an appeal before the Collector which was allowed by holding that he (Ladhu Ram) was an old tenant and was not associated in the proceedings of declaration of surplus area culminating into order dated November 30, 1961 as also that Rukmani Devi was entitled to 60 ordinary acres and not 96 ordinary acres of land. Rukmani Devi agitated this matter before the Commissioner, who vide orders dated March 21, 1967, set aside the orders passed by the Collector and held that Ladhu Ram had since already been ejected and the view of the Collector that Rukmani Devi was entitled to 60 ordinary acres only, was not correct.
(3.) A new chapter was added to the on going controversy when Amar Chand and Des Raj appellants herein were allotted a part of land which was declared surplus in the hands of Rukmani Devi vide orders dated March 10, 1964. It is at this stage for the first time that respondents became aware that the land purchased by them from Saraswati Devi, daughter of original land owner, had been declared surplus vide order dated March 10, 1964 reviewing earlier order dated November 30, 1961 and they thus, filed an appeal against the order of allotment to appellants- Amar Chand and Des Raj before Collector which was accepted on December 20, 1972 on the main plea raised by them that they being both, necessary and proper party, having inherent interest in the land, subject matter of dispute, were not heard while deciding the surplus area case of original land owner - Rukmani Devi. It is admitted position that against this order, no appeal or revision was filed by any of the parties. That being so, respondents applied for restoration of the land which, as referred to above, had meanwhile been allotted to Amar Chand and Des Raj which was allowed vide order dated March 16,1973. Appeal against this order brought about at the instance of allottees failed before the Commissioner on June 15, 1973. However, on further revision before the Financial Commissioner, the impugned orders were set aside on July 30, 1974 necessitating respondent petitioners to file a review of order dated July 30, 1974 which was also declined on November 22, 1974. This left the respondents with no choice but for to challenge the orders of Financial Commissioner dated November 22, 1974 through Civil Writ Petition No. 6521 of 1974 which was allowed and in which ultimately a direction was given to the Financial Commissioner to redecide the matter. It requires to be mentioned that vide order dated July 30, 1974 the Financial Commissioner had declined review primarily on the ground that there was no provision for review. On remand, however, the respondents met with the same fate. This time, however, the review was declined on the grounds that Smt. Rukmani Devi had not mentioned in the Selection Form-E submitted by her in 1958 that she sold the land in dispute to her daughter Smt. Sarswati Devi and no reference had been made to Smt. Sarswati Devi in the order passed by the Collector determining the surplus area of Rukmani Devi, as also that in revenue record the petitioners were not mentioned as interested party and that transferee of a transferee was no entitled to hearing before determination of surplus area of the original big landowner. This order was once again agitated in writ petition filed by respondents which has been allowed by the learned single Judge. It is, thus, against the order of learned Single Judge setting aside the order of the Financial Commissioner referred to above, that the present Letters Patent Appeals, one by tenants - Amar Chand and Des Raj and the other by the State of Haryana, have been filed. It required to be mentioned that Amar Chand and Des Raj were allotted a further piece of land measuring 55 Kanals 13 Marias in the year 1976 under the Utilisation Scheme framed by virtue of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and Rules framed thereunder.;