- (1.) Shibu is a big landowner. Certain areas belonging to him were declared surplus in January, 1961. Mangat Ram, respondent No. 4 had been allotted land measuring 40 Kanals in village Gudha, tehsil and district Karnal, out of the surplus area of Shibu, respondent No. 5, and the petitioners who are sons of Shibu. He was given possession of the land in dispute on 24th May, 1964, and a report of the Kanungo to this effect was also entered. Sometime thereafter, Mangat, respondent No. 4 was forcibly ejected out of this land. It is alleged that the petitioners along with Shibu dispossessed him from the land allotted to him. Mangat made an application to the Collector praying that he should be put in possession of the land allotted to him. Earlier a writ petition was filed by Shibu, land-owner against the declaration of the surplus area, which was dismissed on 17th October 1969. The petitioners filed a suit for injunction in the Civil Court. On the statement made by Mangat, the Civil Court passed a decree that the petitioners will not be dispossessed from the land in dispute without recourse to law. On 27th December, 1974, Mangat had filed an application before the Collector (Agrarian), Karnal, under Section 19-C of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act) wherein he prayed that the possession of the land in dispute which had been forcibly taken from him should be restored to him. This application was allowed on 21st of November, 1975 and orders were passed for the delivery of the possession of Mangat. The petitioners filed an appeal to the Commissioner and the same was dismissed on 14th December, 1976. The revision petition filed by the petitioners to the Financial Commissioner also met the same fate on 3rd of January, 1978. Aggrieved by the orders of the Revenue Authorities, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
(2.) Mr. C.B. Goel, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that once the Collector hands over the possession of the land to a tenant under Section 19-C of the Act and the tenant is somehow or the other dispossessed of the land, the Revenue Authorities become functus officio. According to the provisions of Section 19-C, once the Collector puts the tenant in possession of the land, he cannot exercise this power again to put back the tenant in possession. In support of his contention, Mr. Goel has relied on Maman and others v. The Financial Commissioner and others, 1973 PunLJ 138 This authority indeed supports the contention raised by the learned counsel. After a thorough and elaborate analysis of the provisions of Section 19-C of the Act, Tuli, J. (as his lordship then was) has held : "What Section 19-C of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act really means is that the Collector can direct the landowner or the tenant, whose land has been declared surplus, to deliver possession to the resettled tenant whenever an allotment is made in his favour. Once the resettled tenant gets possession of the land allotted to him, the jurisdiction of the Collector to deliver the possession of that land to him comes to an end. That jurisdiction is not revived when the resettled tenant is forcibly dispossessed from his land by any person - even by the original landowner or the tenant whose land had been declared surplus. In that eventuality, the resettled tenant has to follow the ordinary remedies like the other citizens of the country. The Legislature has not given him a right to go to the Collector under Section 19-C of the Act for restoration of possession to him on the ground that he has been dispossessed by someone. Section 19-C does not clothe the Collector with the power to restore possession to a forcibly ejected resettled tenant. He has to follow the ordinary remedies like any other citizen." It has been clearly held that the Collector can exercise his powers of putting the tenant in possession only once. Once the Collector has exercised these powers and the tenant has been put in possession, even if the tenant is wrongfully divested of the possession, the Collector cannot exercise his powers under Section 19-C to put back the tenant in possession, even if the tenant is wrongfully divested of the possession. The only remedy with the tenant is to approach the Civil Court and pray for restitution of possession which has not been done in this case. This very plea was raised before the Financial Commissioner and Maman's case was cited before him also. The learned Financial Commissioner has tried to get out of his decision by saying that as soon as the possession of the land in dispute has been taken from the tenant, the land become available for allotment by the Collector to an eligible person/tenant and that it was open to the Collector to allot the land in question to any eligible tenant including respondent No. 4. In fact he modified the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner to that extent and ordered the allotment of the land to the tenant. He further directed that the Collector should ensure the possession to be given to Mangat, respondent, within 10 days. To say the least this part of the order of the learned Financial Commissioner is wholly illegal and unsustainable. Mangat had been once allotted land under the provisions of the Act. That allotment has not been cancelled. His right conferred by competent authority still exists. Unless that allotment is cancelled, legally and validly, no fresh allotment of this land could be made to any tenant including Mangat, respondent. This was not the case of the parties. The learned Financial Commissioner used this unusual procedure in order to by-pass the decision in Maman's case . As observed earlier, the allotment to Mangat still subsists.
(3.) The orders of the Revenue Authorities are clearly illegal. I, therefore, allow this writ petition and set aside the impugned orders passed by the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner (Annexures P.1, P.2 and P.3, appended to the petition). There shall be no order as to costs.;