- (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Punjab Act) read with Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 praying for setting aside of the order passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division dated 19.10.2006. Vide this order, the Commissioner, Hisar Division set aside the order dated 16.8.2005 passed by the Collector, Sirsa who in his order had held that surplus area of the displaced person, namely Manohar Lal, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, could not be assessed till permanent allotment was made to such a displaced person. The Collector held that as the permanent allotment case of the displaced person, Manohar Lal, had not been finalised after the surplus matter was closed sine die on 25.1.1964 till the coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Haryana Act) hence, the surplus case would have to be decided under the Haryana Act which was done on 30.8.1982. This finding was overruled by the Commissioner resulting in this petition.
(2.) THE facts are that a dispute before the revenue authority (Assistant Collector Ist Grade Sirsa) between the landowners and tenants over rent payable was transformed into a surplus matter on an allegation made by the tenants, now respondents in this petition before us, that the landowners were liable for penalty on account of having allegedly concealed the status of their surplus land holding from the authorities. Their application, under Section 5-C of the Punjab Act, was taken up by the Collector as Prescribed Authority for consideration. According to the tenants, Manohar Lal, now deceased - the original landowner - was assessed for surplus area in proceedings started under the Punjab Act. An area of 139.16 ordinary acres was declared surplus in the hands of Manohar Lal in vill. Aboobshahr in Tehsil Dabwali in district Sirsa. On receiving a copy of this application, the landowners denied that any fact had been hidden but that the surplus proceedings had never been finalized in the first place. In the case before the Collector Surplus Area, Hisar, Manohar Lal took the plea that he was a displaced person from Pakistan and was entitled to a firm allotment of land in India on migrating from Pakistan. The said permanent allotment had not yet been made and hence, till then, his allotment of land in India ought not to be considered under the surplus law, namely the Punjab Act. Only after the permanent allotment is made to him as per his admissibility as a displaced person may his surplus area case be finalised. The Collector finding the prayer reasonable and after taking up the matter with the Commissioner, Ambala Division for permission to review, allowed the prayer and adjourned the proceedings sine die. Meanwhile, the Ceiling Act came into force and the matter remained unsettled. The big landowner subsequently died and his legal heirs - present petitioners - have now taken the stand that the surplus area decision had never been finalised and would have to be done under the Ceiling Act after the permanent allotment was made in the case. This was done in 1982. The Collector, Sirsa held that the order of 30.6.1961 wherein 139.16 acres had been found surplus had been set aside after permission for review had been taken. The permanent allotment to the displaced person - big landowner - not having attained finality, there was no surplus in his hands under the Punjab Act. The Collector further held that the condition regarding necessity of permanent allotment to displaced persons had been done away with under the new Ceiling Act and the surplus case had been decided on 30.8.1982. Commissioner, Hisar hearing the appeal against this order overturned the findings of the Collector and held that the order of the Collector Surplus Area, Sirsa was illegal and that the former landowner Manohar Lal could retain only 100 ordinary acres or 50 standard acres under the Punjab Act and only this area could be allowed. He upheld the order of the Collector Surplus Area Sirsa dated 30.6.1961. Hence this revision. Arguments were heard on 8.8.2007. The ld. counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned order on the ground that the land in question was subject to surplus proceedings under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 and the pendency of any proceedings under the old Act i.e. the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 had come to an end in view of the order dated 30.8.1982 in which the Prescribed Authority determined that there was no surplus area with the petitioners under the Ceiling Act. He further contended that the order under the Ceiling Act was passed by the Prescribed Authority on 30.8.1982 and the respondents filed the application/complaint under Section 5-C of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act read with Section 33(2)(iv) of the Ceiling Act in the year 2004 i.e. after 22 years. Therefore the application was liable to be dismissed on account of limitation. He argued that the respondents are tenants of the petitioners and they have been paying the rent also thereby accepting the petitioners as landowners. They never challenged any order under the old Punjab Act or the new Ceiling Act. He contended that the order dated 30.6.1961, whereby 139.16 acres of land was declared surplus in the hands of Sh. Manohar Lal (now deceased) was set aside by the Collector Surplus vide his order dated 25.1.1964 and therefore the order dated 30.8.1982 was passed by the Prescribed Authority, whereby the land of the petitioners was assessed under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. He pointed out that the respondents had failed to make the regular payments of rent and, therefore, eviction cases were filed against them. In order to avoid the eviction proceedings, the respondents have now challenged the status of landlords and that is why they filed the present proceedings raising the question of determination of the land in question under the Punjab Act. The District Collector, Sirsa had rightly filed the petition of the respondents vide his order dated 16.8.2005 on the grounds that the petitioners had not been given permanent rights of the land in question before the Ceiling Act came into force. Under the Ceiling Act, the distinction between the displaced landowners and others was done away with. He contended that the Commissioner had committed illegality in upsetting the order of the Collector.
(3.) IN reply, the ld. counsel for the respondents argued that it is proved from the records and facts of the case that the surplus proceedings under the Punjab Act were pending in view of the order dated 25.1.1964. These proceedings were adjourned sine die till the landlord was given a permanent allotment of land due him as a displaced person. However, the petitioners had become the landowners permanently and that their land was assessed under the new Act i.e. Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 vide order dated 30.8.1982. In fact, the petitioners concealed these facts holding that the surplus proceedings under the Punjab Act had not been finalised. According to the ld. Counsel, the surplus case ought to have been finalised under the Punjab Act before any further assessment was initiated under the Ceiling Act. The original landowner, Sh. Manohar Lal, was alive during the regime of the Punjab Act and no succession had opened before the new Ceiling Act came into force. He also contended that the allotment under Section 2(3) of the Punjab Act does not distinguish between a permanent allotment order or otherwise in case of displaced persons. It covers temporary allotment also. He referred to 1965 PLJ 110 in this regard. He further referred to the judgment in the case Brij Lal v. State of Haryana cited in 2001(2) RCR(Civil) 299 : 2001(1) PLJ 148, whereby the orders of the Financial Commissioner were upheld by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. The question was whether the Financial Commissioner had the power and jurisdiction to direct the Collector to decide the surplus area case afresh under the Punjab Act and only thereafter decide the case under the Ceiling Law and the ejectment application thereafter. It was answered in affirmed.;