K.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) SANT Singh Respondent owned 35.05 standard acres or land situate in village Attlan, District Bhatinda. On 12th(sic) September 1954, he got entered a report in the roznamcha of the Patwari 10 the effect that he had gitted 13 Bighas and 18 Biswas of land in favour of his wife. The Assistant Collector Agrarian issued him draft statement in Form No. 8 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act; 1955, and after in inquiry, on August 22, 1961 declared 162 standard acres out of his holding as surplus. Sant Singh represented to the Agrarian authorities against this order bringing to their notice the report dated September 17, 1954 pertaining to the gift. He further represented that the mutation entered on the basis of that report had been wrongly rejected by the revenue officers in the absence of the parties. Relying on an unreported decision of this Court in Ranjit Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab etc., 1963 C.W.N 721 of Civil Writ No. 721 of 1963, decided by I.D. Dua and Jindra Lal JJ. on November 5, 1963. The Collector Bhatinda District submitted the case of Sant Singh to the Commissioner Patiala Division for review. The learned Commissioner vide his order dated January 28, 1969 sent the case back to the Collector, Bhatinda for ascertaining if the possession of the land bad been actually transferred in the name of the donee as mentioned in the report, before August 21, 1956. The Collector in his turn made a report "that transfer in favour of his (land -owner's) wife did not take place on the scot. Actually the possession was not transferred before August 2l, 1956, according to revenue record." The Commissioner, Patiala Division, vide his orders dated July 15, 1969 did not accept the gift of Sant Singh Respondent in favour of his wife on the ground that from the record he failed to prove the delivery of possession to the donee before August 21, 1956. He did not follow the decision in Ranjit Singh's case (supra) as in his view it did not decide the factum of delivery of possession but only concerned about the disruption of the joint Hindu Family property.
(2.) SANT Singh filed civil Writ No. 2920 of 1969, in this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the orders of the Collector Agrarian declaring 1.6 standard acres of his land as surplus and also the order of the Commissioner of Patiala Division. The learned Single Judge of this Court referring to Ranjit Singh case observed that it only determined the question of the disruption of the Joint Hindu family property on separation of the shares of if members on partition and that this consideration could not be applied to the case of gifts. The learned Single Judge further observed: The recording of a report before the Patwari by itself does not complete the transaction of gift It has further to be shown that the donee accepted the gift. The gift would be come complete only after it has been accepted by the donee. In the instant case, the reviewing authority has come to a finding of fact that the time when the alleged report was made actual physical possession was not transferred in favour of the wife of the Petitioner. Relying on these circumstances, the Commissioner refused the Collector the permission to review his earlier order. The reasons advanced by the Commissioner are valid and convincing and it would not be open to me to reassess these reasons in proceedings under Article 216 of the Constitution. An unreported decision in Bakhtawar Singh, v. The State of Punjab, 1964 C.W.N 1715 of , decided by Prem Chand Jain, J. on 3rd March, 1971, was cited before the learned Single Judge. On the basis of that judgment which followed another Single Bench judgment in Jagir Singh v. The Financial Commissioner Punjab, (1976) 69 P.L.R. 305, the learned Single Judge observed as under: I, may, however, add that Jagir Singh's case (supra) related to a partition of a joint family property but the principle laid down in that case was applied by the learned Judge to the case of a gift as well. While sitting in Single Bench, I am bound to follow with respect the view taken by another learned Judge of this Court. On the basis of the authority in Bakhtawar Singh's case the learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition and remanded the case to the Collector, Bhatinda for a decision afresh. The State of Punjab has filed the letters patent a peal under Clause X of the Letters Patent.
(3.) IN the case in hand the revenue authorities upto the Commissioner arrived at a finding that possession of 13 Bighas 18 Biswas of land had not been physically delivered to the donee The Respondent did not place any material on the file of the Writ petition to prove that the findings of the revenue authorities were against the records or otherwise were so erroneous as to require interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . The Respondent after the finding against him. did not even allege in the petition that he had actually parted with the possession of this property in favour of his wife on 17th September, 1954, when he made the report to the Patwati. He simply stated in Para 2 of his writ petition - That on 17th September, 1954 the Petitioner transferred 13 Bighas 18 Biswas of land in favour of (Smt. Jagir Kaur wife of the Petitioner) through Repat Roznamcha." Further in Para 9(i) he stared - That the transfer in favour of the wife of the Petitioner was complete on 17th September, 1954(sic) " These assertions in clear and unambiguous terms do not state that the possession of 13 Bighas and 18 Biswas of land which is stated to have been gifted away by him never remained with him bat was actually delivered to the donee. He did not even tie the affidavit of his wife to that effect. No Khasra Girdawari was tendered to Drove the change of possession for the purpose of cultivation of this land, on the basis of which it could be said that the conclusion arrived at by revenue authorities was wrong.;