9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (8) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is stated that collaterals of Dhan Kaur filed a suit for pre-emption which was decreed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court and it was only ultimately in this Court that in Regular Second Appeal No. 62 of 1960 decided on 18th January, 1961, the suit was dismissed in view of the amendment of the Punjab Pre-emption Act by Act 10 of 1960. Dhan Kaur, as a big landowner had to furnish a return under Section 32-F of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Pepsu Act). But it is stated that since she had no interest left in the matter, she did not furnish any return and consequently the Collector respondent No. 3 acting under Section 32-D of the Pepsu Act, on 26th February, 1960, finally declared an area of 27.83 standard acres in the hands of the respondent No. 4 as surplus. It is common case of the parties that no notice was given of these proceedings under Section 32-D of the Pepsu Act to the appellants who had purchased the land in 1958. According to the appellants they came to know about this declaration of the surplus area on 3rd January, 1963, when proceedings for the allotment of the surplus area were started. Their appeal a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther disposition of land after 21st August, 1956 shall affect the right of the State Government, under this Act, to the surplus area to which it would be entitled, but for transfer or disposition. The net result of this provision is that the transfers have to be ignored. If the transfers are ignored, no question of any notice to the transferees arises. The transferred property will not vest in the transferees and for the purposes of the Act, they will not be deemed to be the owners of the property. Therefore, the contention, that the non-giving of notice to the transferees violates the principles of natural justice, has no substance..................................." 4. That was a case of a donor and the other question, whether the transferee was a land less person and was or was not covered by exception provided under Section 32-FF did not come for consideration. This Full Bench judgment was referred to by Narula, J. in Bhool Chand v. State of Punjab 1969 R LR 70 . That was a case under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. Relying upon two judgments of Shamsher Bahadur J. in Ghamandi Ram. v. Financial Commr. (1965) 44 LLT 31 and Indraj Singh v. State of Punjab (19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeared before him or not and what objections they had filed and should then have disposed of each of the objections preferred before him". 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the relevant rules of the Pepsu Act and the corresponding form are materially the same as in the Punjab Act and that consequently the argument which prevailed with the learned Judges in holding that under the Punjab Act transferee is an interested party and should be given a notice before giving a decision of the surplus area, applies with full force to the Pepsu Act as well. So far as the question as to what happens to the surplus area, after the same has been declared and notified is concerned, it is a question which arises only after the declaration of the surplus area and is foreign to the matter in controversy before us, namely, as to what the Collector is required to do before declaring the surplus area. The mere fact that after the surplus area is declared and notified, the land vest in the State Government under the Pepsu Act, therefore, a consideration which is irrelevant for the purpose of the question whether a transferee should or should not be given a notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) are contained in Chapter IV-A of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (13 of 1955) (hereinafter called the Act). Section 32-A prohibits, inter alia the owning or holding as land-owner of any land within the State which in the aggregate exceeds the "permissible limit". Without referring to the detailed definition of that expression given in Section 3 of the Act. We will assume for the sake of this case that the permissible limit is thirty Standard Acres. Section 32-B enjoins, inter alia, on every person who owned or held any land as land-owner on October 30, 1956, which exceeded there permissible limit, to furnish to the Collector within one month from July 30, 1958 a return giving the particulars of all his land in the prescribed form and manner and stating therein:-- (a) his selection of the parcel or parcels of land not exceeding the permissible limit which he desires to retain; (b) the lands in respect of which he claims exemption from the ceiling under the provision of Chapter IV-A; and (c) particulars of any transfer or other disposition of land made by him after August 21, 1956. I will deal with the prescribed forms and the prescribed manner after refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erned an opportunity of being heard, pass such order as it may deem fit. (5) Any order of the State Government under sub-section (3) or sub-s. (4), or of the Collector subject to the decision of the State Government under those sub-sections shall be final. (6) The draft statement shall then be made final in terms of the order of the Collector or the State Government as the case may be or in terms of the advice of the Pepsu Land Commission regarding exemptions from the ceiling claimed by the land-owner (if any), and published in the Official Gazette and no person shall then be entitled to question it in any Court or before any authority. (7) The final statement shall then be submitted by the Collector to the State Government as soon as may be and a copy thereof may on demand be given to the land-owner or the tenant concerned" 10. Section 32-DD requires future tenancies in surplus area and certain judgments etc. to be ignored. Vesting of the surplus area in the State Government is provided by Section 32-E notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, custom or usage. The surplus area of a land-owner is deemed to have been acquired by the State Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under their personal cultivation as we are not concerned in the present litigation with the case of the declaration of the surplus area of a tenant. Such tenants have been dealt with throughout the above mentioned provisions of the same footing as land-owners. 11. The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1958 (hereinafter called the 1958 Rules) have been framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers vested in it by Section 52 of the Act. Provisions for filing returns of land in excess of the ceiling and acquisition and disposal of surplus area by the Government have been made in Part V of those Rules. Rule 19 with which Part V starts provides that every land-owner (once again omitting reference to the case of tenants) is required to furnish a return under Section 32-B of the Act in Form VII-A to the Collector of the district in which his land is situate, either personally or by registered post. Rule 20 authorises the land-owner to secure the services of the concerned Patwari to fill up the prescribed form on payment of the prescribed fee. In a case where the Patwari fills up the form, he is made responsible by sub-rule (2) of R. 20 for the correctness of all entr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lage wise, the area under tenants with their names, the selected area within the permissible limit, particulars of the area sought to be exempted from the ceiling under Section 32-K of the Act with reasons for claiming the exemption, the estimated surplus area, etc. In addition to this particulars of any transfer or disposition made by the land-owner after August 21, 1956, have to be furnished as required by the proviso to Section 32-B. Where the Patwari prepares the statement under Section 32-C, he has to give same particulars in Part A of Form VII-F as those contained in Form VII-A; and in addition to those particulars (statement showing the area owned by a land-owner in a Patwar circle), a statement is required to be given in Part B of that Form showing the transfers made by the land-owner after August 21, 1956. In Part B the name and the parentage of the transferor, the date of transfer the party to whom the land was transferred, the nature of the transfer, the area involved with Khasra numbers, particulars of the consideration paid, if any, and information about the transfer being oral or registered required to be furnished. Form VII-F has to be prepared by the Patwari, to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urposes of declaration of the surplus area of a land-owner who has not himself furnished Form VII-A, particulars of the transfer effected by the land-owner along with the name and particulars of the transferee, etc. have to be specifically mentioned. 14. In appears to be pertinent to notice at this very stage a proposition of law which has since been settled by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in S. Pritam Singh Chahil v. State of Punjab AIR 1967 SC 930. While observing that Section 32-FF was added to the principal Act to frustrate the device of the land-owners for saving lands be transferring them to their relatives and after noticing the fact that such a transfer made after August 21, 1956 was not to affect the right of the State Government under the Act to the surplus area to which it would be entitled but for such transfer their Lordships held as below:-- "Between the transferor and the transferee the transfer would be good, but it would not be effective against the State Government. That is to say for ascertaining the surplus area the land transferred would be included in the transferor's land. Out of the total extent, the land above the ceiling, that is the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to our notice the Division Bench judgment of S. B. Capoor. J., and myself in Hardev Singh v. State of Punjab ILR (1970) P & H 411. Besides interpreting the relevant rules under the Punjab Act to suggest that such a notice was necessary, I had specifically observed in that judgment (with which S. B. Capoor, J. concurred) that "even otherwise, the requirement of service of notice on all persons interested under sub-rule (3) of R. 6 of the 1956 Rules (framed under the Punjab Act) appears to us to be based on principles of natural justice requiring an opportunity being afforded to any person who is likely to be prejudicially affected by an order which might be passed in the relevant proceedings". It had further been observed by the Division Bench in Hardev Singh's case (supra) that such a notice cannot be dispensed with on the mere ground that particular transferees or tenants who may otherwise be deemed to be the persons interested in the proceedings may have no good defence to the proposed order. Even before the Bench hearing Hardev Singh's case reliance was sought to be placed by the State counsel on certain observations made in the Full Bench judgment of this C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t no transfers or other disposition of land after 21st August, 1956 shall affect the right of the State Government, under this Act, to the surplus area to which it would be entitled, but for transfer or disposition. The net result of this provision is that the transfers have to be ignored. If the transfers are ignored, no question of any notice to the transferees arises. The transferred property will not vest in the transferees and for the purposes of the Act, they will not be deemed to be the owners of the property. Therefore, the contention, that the non-giving of notice to the transferees violates the principles of natural justice, has no substance. It is not disputed that notice was given to the donor" 18. Though Mr. Seth has tried to argue that a transferee is included in the expression "persons concerned" occurring in Section 32-D of the Act, and is, therefore, entitled to be heard at all stages relating to the declaration of the surplus area of the transferor, we consider it unnecessary to enter into this controversy for the simple reason that even if the statute and the rules framed thereunder are silent on the point, it appears to us to be necessary for sat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llacious for the State counsel to argue that principles of natural justice cannot operate in a case where the relevant rules do not make provision for the same being followed. Things may be different in a case where the application of particular rules of natural justice may be excluded by the Legislature. That is not the case here. No part of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder has even purported to exclude the well known principle of audi alteram partem. Without feeling the necessity of referring to the long series of cases relating to the observance and importance of the above mentioned principle of natural justice. I may quote with advantage the following passage from the latest judgment of the Supreme Court on the subject in Union of India v. Col. J. N. Sinha AIR 1971 SC 40):-- As observed by this Court in A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 150 : 1969 Serv LR 445, ) 'the aim of rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words, they do not supplant the law of the land, but supplement it.' It is true that if a stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct judicially there was no room for the application of the rule of natural justice no longer holds good. 23. Following the principles laid down in the above mentioned judgment of the Supreme Court and the earlier judgments of that Court in which the earliest dicta on the subject in Board of Education v. Rice 1911 AC 179 were approved, I would answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and hold that where a transfer is made by a land-owner after August 21, 1956, the transferee is the person interested in participating in the proceedings for declaration of surplus area and he must be given an opportunity of being heard to avoid his interest being prejudicially affected before declaring the surplus area of his transferor under the Act. 24. The costs of the hearing before the Full Bench shall abide the decision of the appeal which shall now go back to the Division Bench for being decided in accordance with law, keeping in view the answer returned by us to the question referred by the Division Bench. Harbans Singh, C.J. 25. I agree. Gurdev Singh, J. 26. I agree. Balraj Tuli, J. 27. I entirely agree with the judgment prepared by my learned brother Narula, J, and the an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
