LexSUDARSHAN NATH AND ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SUDARSHAN NATH AND ORS. A v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. APRIL4, 2000 [S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] B Tenancy and Land Laws : . Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953: Sections 2, 3 and24-A(2)-Surplus land-Allotment of-Collector allot- C ted surplus land of big landowner to his tenant-Such tenant deposited pµr- chase price-Landowner kept on challenging declaration of surplus land- Financial Commissioner declared such tenant as owner of surplus land on the basis of deposit of purr:hase price-Held: High Court rightly upheld order of Financial Commissioner-Punjab Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme, 1973- D Punjab Land Refomis Act, 1972 ss. 8 and 9( 1 ). Section 18(4)-Surplus land-Allotment of-Tenant of a big landowner deposited purr:hase price of surplus land allotted to him-Held: On the deposit of purr:hase price or even the first instalment thereof such tenant is deemed to be the owner of the land. E Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226-Writ petition-Summary dismissal of-Held: Even if High Court appmves of the orders of courts below it ought to give some reasons to disclose application of its mind-It is not proper to reject the writ petition by F a cryptic order. The ceiling area of R, who was a big landowner and the predecessor- in-interest of the appellants, was determined by the Collector under Sec- tions 3 and 4 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and a certain area of land was declared surplus. However, after completion of the consoli- G dation proceedings the Collector declared that no area was left surplus. J, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, filed a suit for a declaration that he, being the tenant of R, was entitled to allotment of the surplus land. The suit was decreed but the decree could not be executed since R's appeal against the declaration of surplus land was pending. H 927 A B c D E 928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R. In the meanwhile, the Collector allotted the surplus land to J who duly deposited the purchase price under Section 18(4) of the Land Ten- ures Act. The Commissioner confirmed this order. R did not specifically challenge the allotment of surplus land. However, R filed a revision peti- tion before the Financial Commissioner against the order of the Commis- sioner. The Financial Commissioner disposed of the revision petition with a direction that R should be given an opportunity to select the permissible area under Section 24-A(2) of the Land Tenures Act and the allottee accommodated elsewhere on an equivalent land. In fact the Financial Commissioner adversely commented upon the lack of bona fide in the transfer of some of he holdings of R said to have been effected in 1954. Pursuant to the order of the Financial Commissioner, the Collector cancelled the allotment made in favour of J by holding that there was no surplus land and that J should be accommodated elsewhere. The Comnlis- sioner dismissed J's appeal on the ground that the area declared surplus did not vest in the State under Section 8 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 for want of notice as required under Section 9(1) of the Land Re- forms Act. It was also held that J had not proved his possession of the land. The Financial Commissioner allowed the revision petition filed by the LRs. of J. J was declared to be the owner of the surplus land since he had already deposited the purchase amount in respect of the surplus land. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants. Hence this appeal. •. On behalf of the appellant strong reliance was placed upon the Collector's order holding that no area was left as surplus. It was also contended that the appellants had acquired rights to retain the entirety of F the lands, in view of the fact that the lands declared surplus were not also utilised by taking over possession of the same, that there was no vesting of the lands declared surplus in accordance ~th law and, therefore, the Financial Commissioner committed an error in interfering with the or- ders of the Commissioner and the Collector; that the High Court dis- G missed the writ petition without giving reasons and, therefore, the appeal merited acceptance. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1.1. The fact that J was a tenant on the appointed date, as H a consequence of which only the lands were allotted to him has not also SUDARSHAN NATH v. STATE 929 been disturbed or specifically
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.