State of Punjab vs Surain Singh and others

B.B. Mahajan, F.C.

This case has been taken up suo motu by this Court under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The facts of the case, in brief, are that land measuring 12.79 acres was acquired in village Payal, district Ludhiana during the time of former Pepsu State in the year 1954 by the Irrigation Department for the construction of Payal Minor. Later on this Minor Irrigation Channel was abandoned by the Irrigation Department and the matter was processed for its restoration to the original landowners. Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, vide his letter dated the 17th December, 1980 referred the matter to the Commissioner, Patiala Division intimating that after the acquisition of land, consolidation operations had taken place. Consequently, new khasra numbers had been assigned and it is not feasible to restore this land to the original landowners. It was, therefore, requested that sanction may be accorded as laid down in para 493 of the Land Administration Manual, to dispose of this land in open auction. In turn, the Commissioner referred the case to Government to accord necessary sanction, vide his letter dated the 6th February, 1981 and the Government accorded necessary sanction vide its memo, dated the 2nd March, 1981 to dispose of the land through public auction. Consequently NaibTehsildar, Payal was asked by the Deputy Commissioner by his memo dated the 4th March, 1981, to dispose of the land through open auction keeping in view the prevailing market price of the land. Accordingly the land was auctioned on the 24th March, 1981, which was purchased by the respondents No. 1 to 10. This sale of land in open auction was confirmed by the then Financial Commissioner Revenue (Shri K.D. Vasudeva) vide his order dated the 30th July, 1981, which were conveyed to Commissioner, Patiala Division and Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, vide Government letter dated the 3rd August, 1981. A complaint was made by Bishan Singh etc. of village Payal, against the auction alleging that on Mustri Munadi was done regarding disposal of this land through open auction; no open auction took place and the land was disposed of in surreptitious manner. In this matter an enquiry was held by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Khanna, who submitted his report to the Deputy Commissioner Ludhiana, who held that allegations levelled by the complainants are proved and in turn the Deputy Commissioner referred the matter to Government for setting aside the sale, if feasible.

I heard the learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 10 (auction purchasers) and learned counsel for respondents No. 11 to 21 (landowners) on 25th July, 1983. Thereafter I heard them again on 28th November, 1983 on the point of jurisdiction. It is obvious from the facts mentioned briefly in para 1 above that the sale of land was not for recovery of land revenue or any sum recoverable as arrears of land revenue. It was a case of sale by Government of land which it had acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The certificate of sale in this case has been issued under Section 95 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. A sale certificate under Section 95 of the Act can, however, only be issued after an order confirming the sale is issued under Section 92 which in turn can be passed only in respect of sales of land under Section 75 of the Act which is applicable only when land is to be sold for recovery of arrears of land revenue. Section 95 of the Act had, therefore, no application in the present case.

The powers of revision vested in the Financial Commissioner under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act are obviously in relation to any case pending before or disposed of by any subordinate revenue officer under the Act. The learned counsel for the State has not been able to show any provisions of the Land Revenue Act under which the sale in the present case may have been effected or any order of revenue officer in this case which may fall under the purview of Land Revenue Act. He has also not been able to show how jurisdiction to annul the sale certificate issued in favour of respondents No. 1 to 10 where sale was not effected under any provision of Land Revenue Act vests in the Financial Commissioner. The case is accordingly filed, being without jurisdiction. The State will, of course, be free to take recourse to any other remedy that may be available to it to get the sale annulled, if so advised.

To be communicated.