1998 (11) TMI 682 - SC - Indian Laws

Court rules surplus land utilized, dismisses appeal. Procedural requirements met. Land not exempted. Valid possession and allotment upheld.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the surplus land was utilized before the death of the landowner. The procedural requirements were ... - Issues Involved:1. Utilization of surplus land under Section 10A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953.2. Inheritance and exemption of surplus land under Section 10A(b) of the Punjab Act.3. Compliance with procedural requirements for utilization of surplus land.4. Validity of possession and allotment of surplus land.5. Execution of 'Kabuliyat' or 'Patta' under Rule 20C of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1953.Detailed Analysis:1. Utilization of Surplus Land under Section 10A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953:The core issue was whether the surplus land declared under the Punjab Act was utilized before the death of the landowner, Banarsi Das, in 1971. Section 10A(a) authorizes the State Government to utilize any surplus area for the resettlement of tenants ejected or to be ejected. The appellants contended that the land was not utilized as per the statutory requirements before the death of Banarsi Das, thus it should not be considered surplus.2. Inheritance and Exemption of Surplus Land under Section 10A(b) of the Punjab Act:The appellants argued that the land inherited by them upon the death of Banarsi Das should be exempt from being declared surplus under Section 10A(b). They claimed that since the land was inherited by them and their mother, who were small farmers, it should be exempted from the surplus pool. The court, however, noted that if the land had already been utilized, the exemption would not apply as per Section 10-B.3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Utilization of Surplus Land:The court examined whether the procedural requirements for the utilization of surplus land, as stipulated in the Punjab Act and the Rules, were followed. This included the issuance of a certificate in Form K-6, delivery of possession to the tenant, and the execution of 'Kabuliyat' or 'Patta'. The court found that the procedural steps were followed, and possession was delivered to Mangat Ram in 1964, as evidenced by the revenue records and various affidavits.4. Validity of Possession and Allotment of Surplus Land:The appellants challenged the validity of the possession and allotment of the surplus land to Mangat Ram. The court found that possession was indeed delivered to Mangat Ram in 1964, and he remained in continuous possession. The findings of the lower authorities, including the Collector, Commissioner, and Financial Commissioner, were upheld, indicating that the land was utilized before the death of Banarsi Das.5. Execution of 'Kabuliyat' or 'Patta' under Rule 20C of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1953:The appellants contended that the land could not be considered utilized as Mangat Ram did not execute the 'Kabuliyat' in favor of Banarsi Das. The court noted that the execution of 'Kabuliyat' is a mandatory requirement under Rule 20C. However, it presumed that all antecedent formalities, including the execution of 'Kabuliyat', were complied with, as possession was delivered by the Revenue Circle Officer. The court also emphasized that the absence of 'Kabuliyat' on record does not imply non-execution, as it is a document kept by the landowner.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the surplus land was utilized before the death of Banarsi Das, and the procedural requirements were duly followed. The land inherited by the appellants could not be exempted from the surplus pool as it was already utilized. The findings of the lower authorities were upheld, and the possession and allotment in favor of Mangat Ram were deemed valid.