9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to notice under Section 32-D of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. 2. Validity of transfers under Section 32-FF of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. 3. Principles of natural justice in the context of surplus area proceedings. Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Notice under Section 32-D of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955: The appellants argued that they were entitled to notice before the surplus area was declared under Section 32-D of the Pepsu Act. The court noted that no notice was given to the appellants, who had purchased the land in 1958. The appellants contended that the lack of notice vitiated the proceedings, making them null and void. The State, however, relied on the Full Bench judgment in Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, which held that transferees were not interested parties entitled to notice. The court observed that the Full Bench judgment in Pritam Singh's case related to the Pepsu Act and not the Punjab Act, and the distinction between the two Acts was significant. The court concluded that the principles of natural justice required that notice be given to transferees, as their interests could be prejudicially affected by the declaration of the surplus area. 2. Validity of Transfers under Section 32-FF of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955: The appellants argued that as landless persons, their transfer should be valid under Section 32-FF of the Pepsu Act. They contended that even if they were relations within the prescribed degree, the transfer should be valid, and they should be entitled to receive the consideration paid to the vendor. The court noted that Section 32-FF provided that transfers after August 21, 1956, would not affect the State's right to the surplus area. The court further observed that the Supreme Court in S. Pritam Singh Chahil v. State of Punjab held that such transfers were good between the transferor and transferee but ineffective against the State. The court concluded that even if the transfers were ignored for determining the surplus area, the transferees were entitled to a hearing to claim the consideration paid. 3. Principles of Natural Justice in the Context of Surplus Area Proceedings: The court emphasized the importance of the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule of audi alteram partem (hear the other side). The court cited various judgments, including Union of India v. Col. J. N. Sinha and State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, to highlight that even administrative orders affecting civil consequences must conform to the principles of natural justice. The court held that the proceedings under the Pepsu Act were quasi-judicial and required adherence to natural justice principles. The court concluded that the transferees were entitled to notice and a hearing before the surplus area was declared, as their interests could be adversely affected. Judgment of the Full Bench: The Full Bench, comprising R.S. Narula, C.J., Harbans Singh, Gurdev Singh, Balraj Tuli, and Prem Chand Jain, J.J., unanimously agreed with the analysis provided by Narula, J. They concluded that where a transfer is made by a landowner after August 21, 1956, the transferee is an interested person entitled to notice before declaring the surplus area under the Pepsu Act. The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice required that the transferee be given an opportunity to safeguard their interests in such proceedings. The costs of the hearing before the Full Bench were to abide by the decision of the appeal, which was to be decided by the Division Bench in accordance with the law, keeping in view the answer provided by the Full Bench.
|
