- (1.) This petition has arisen out of the surplus area proceedings of the land of Ajmer Singh, petitioner No. 1, in village Koersingh Wala, sub-tehsil Phul, district Bhatinda. Ajmer Singh transferred 46 kanals and 14 marlas of land through a registered-deed to Kartar Singh, Bakhtawar Singh, Jora Singh, sons of Mehtab Singh. The mutation was also sanctioned on 26th February, 1958. Another 22 kanals of land was sold to Arjan Singh, Nachhattar Singh, sons of Jhanda Singh and Mukhtiar Singh, Bhagwan Singh sons of Sucha Singh. The mutation regarding this land was sanctioned on 26th February, 1957. These vendees are not related to the petitioner in any manner and all are small landowners. They are thus transferees which are protected under the provisions of Section 32-FF of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. Gurtej Singh, petitioner No. 2, also filed a suit for pre-emption which was decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge. The Collector declared 30.39 standard acres of petitioner No. 1's land as surplus on 10th April, 1961. No notice was given to the vendees and the order was passed behind the back of the vendees. Dissatisfied by the order of the Collector, petitioner No. 1 filed an appeal before the Commissioner which was allowed and the case was remanded to the Collector for fresh decision according to law. The Collector again declared 30.39 standard acres of land as surplus vide his order dated 31st January, 1965 (Annexure 'A') and then an appeal was filed before the Commissioner who dismissed the same vide his order dated 20th August, 1965 (Annexure 'B'). A revision petition filed before the Financial Commissioner was also dismissed by him vide his order dated 7th January, 1966 (Annexure 'C'). It is against these orders (Annexure 'A', 'B' and 'C') that the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) Admittedly, the impugned orders have been passed behind the back of the transferees. The only point which survives in the petition is whether the transfers made before 31st July, 1958, are valid or not in view of the provisions of Section 32-FF of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. In this regard, in a Division Bench Authority of this Court reported as Harpal Singh v. The State of Punjab and others, 1970 PunLJ 159, their Lordships have observed as under :- "If a valid sale of land has been made by the original landowner which is protected by the exceptions given in Section 32-FF of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, the property in the land passes from the date of the registration. From the date of the registration the original landowner is divested of all right, title and interest in the land and if such a sale is protected under Section 32-FF, the land would go out of the ambit of its liability to be declared surplus qua the original landowner. Once it is so held that the original transfer to vendee is valid it appears plain that the subsequent divesting of the vendees by the superior right of the pre-emptor would not for a second time, bring the land again within the scope and mischief of the confiscatory provision under Section 32-FF. If once a valid title has accrued to the vendee, his subsequent divesting at the later point of time by operation of law in pursuance of decree of pre-emption, cannot by any stretching of legal fictions be deemed to be a transfer by the original landowner in favour of the prescribed relations under the rules framed under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x As soon as the original landowner would transfer the land to the vendee and in case such a sale does not offend the provisions of Section 32-FF, the land in question could not be declared surplus either with the original landowner or with the vendee. The mere fact that at a later period of time which may run well into a number of years the said land may be pre-empted, would not bring it back within the ambit of Section 32-FF. The original sale to the vendee cannot be said to have been wiped out by the decree of pre-emption because the right and title of the pre-emptor always accrues subsequent to the original date of the sale."
(3.) In this view of the matter, the impugned orders (Annexures 'A', 'B' and 'C') are quashed and the writ petition is allowed but the case is remanded to Collector, Bhatinda, for determining afresh the surplus area in accordance with law after notice to the vendees. There is no order as to costs.;