ivil Appeal No 836 of 1974
From the Judgment and Order dated 2381971 of the Punjab  Haryana High Court in LPA No 487 of 1968
SP Goyal and DD Sharma for the Appellants
A Minocha for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN J
Nawal Singh sold 102 bighas of land to Nathu Ram for Rs8000 by a sale dated 11th February 1952
He also executed a sale deed in respect of 90 bighas of land to Sardha Ram for a sum of Rs4500 on 28th October 1952
There were recitals in the two sale deeds regarding the necessity for the sale
The first sale deed stated 771 1 The land is Banjar Qadim
According to the law in force it is obligatory to break and cultivate this land
Otherwise the Govern ment would give it out by auction to some other person
2 I need money to bring other land under the plough to sink a new well and for other agricultural works such as purchases of bullocks etc
The recitals in the second sale deed dated 28 10 1952 ran as follows I have absolutely sold the aforesaid banjar qadim land   for meeting my own needs repairing the well installing a persian wheel purchasing camel and reclaiming the aforesaid banjar qadim jungle land
 Nawal Singh s heirs filed suits for setting aside the sales on the ground that they were governed by Punjab Agri cultural customs in matters of alienation that the land was ancestral and that the alienation had been made without legal necessity and therefore would not affect their reversionary rights on the death of the vendor
Both suits were consolidated and tried together
The suits were dis missed by the sub judge and the first appeals were dismissed by the senior subordinate judge
Second appeals were pre ferred which came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of the High Court
The learned Judge held that the sale in favour of Nathu Ram was without legal necessity except to the extent of a sum of Rs 1000 which was actual ly utilised by the vendor for the sinking of a new well in his remaining lands  and that the sale in favour of Sardha Ram was entirely without necessity
There were appeals against the order of the learned Single Judge to a Division Bench of the same High Court
The Division Bench held that so far as the sale in favour of Nathu Ram was concerned the learned Single Judge had fallen into an error in upsetting the concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below
The Court proceeded to observe The Courts below found and on evidence that bulk of Nawal Singh s land was banjar qadim
It has been further found that under the Punjab Utilisation of Lands Act notices were issued to Nawal Singh that if the land was not broken up it would be taken under that Act and leased out 772 to third party
There were no irrigation facilities available for the land and to sink a well money was needed
There is ample evi dence on the record on which these evidences are based
The vendor has come into the wit ness box and stated that the money was raised for this purpose
The statement of the vendee was accepted by the Courts of fact
In this situation there was no justification to displace the judgments of the Court below with regard to the sale in favour of Nathu Ram exhibit D 3
The rule is firmly settled that the vendee either established the existence of necessity in fact or a bona fide inquiry that there was necessity for the sale
If he satis fies either one of the two requirements the sale would be held for necessity or an act and good management as the case may be 
It cannot be denied that for an agriculturist to bring under his plough his land is a matter of necessity and if some land is sold to bring the bulk of the land under cultivation it would certainly be an act of necessity as well as an act of good management
We are there fore clearly of the view that the learned Single Judge was not justified in upsetting the sale in favour of Nathu Ram However in respect of sale in favour of Sardha Ram the Bench observed that the real difficulty was that there was no evidence that the money was advanced for the purpose of breaking up of the land but for the mere recital in the sale deed which was not sufficient for the purpose
Unfortu nately neither the vendee nor the witness had stated that the land was sold by Nawal Singh to break up his banjar qadim land
The only fact proved was that Nawal Singh had a lot of banjar land but that was of no consequence by itself
The decision of the learned Single Judge was therefore upheld in respect of the sale in favour of Sardha Ram
The vendor has accepted the decision in regard to the sale in favour of Nathu Ram
Sardha Ram has preferred the present appeal before us
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was really no difference in the factual position so far as the two sales are concerned and that the Division Bench has erred in upsetting the sale in favour of Sardha Ram while upholding it in the case of Nathu Ram
The High Court overlooked that even assuming that there was no evi dence to show that Sardha Ram had made enquiries as to the necessity for the sale factual necessity for the sale had been established by the evidence on the record which was common to both the sales
After 773 hearing both sides we are of opinion that this contention has to be accepted
It is an admitted fact that the alienor owned about 1100 bighas of land
It was also an established fact that of this 973 bighas was banjar qadim and the remaining land was of inferior quality
The land was also under mortgage
It is also Common ground that the provisions of the East Punjab Utilisation of Lands Act Act 38 of 1949 as amended by Ordinance 15 of 1950 were in force in the area
Under the provisions of this Act a notice could be given requiring a land holder to bring uncultivated land under cultivation after reclamation within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of a notice in that regard
Failing this the area could be resumed by the Government and leased out to some other cultivators or society for cultivation for a period of at least 8 years
The appellant had examined the development clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner Kamal D W 1 to show that a notice had been issued to Nawal Singh under the provisions of the said Act on 8th May 1951 in respect of his banjar land measuring 976 bighas
The learned Single Judge overlooked the notice of 8th May 1951 and mistakenly referring to another notice issued on 15101954 to Sardha Ram thought that the compulsions under the Act arose only after the sales of 1952
The Divi sion Bench however has accepted the correct position while dealing with the sale in favour of Nawal Singh
Having done this we fail to see now the Bench could have held that the sale in favour of Sardha Ram was not actuated by the same grounds of necessity
The question for consideration is whether if Nawal Singh faced by the notice under the Punjab Utilisation Act that unless he brought the land under culti vation they would be leased out to some other party decided that it would be in the best interests of the holdings as a whole to sell a portion of the land so that sale proceeds may be utilised for the reclamation of the major part of the remaining land it could not be said that such a sale was justified by necessity
We think that the answer must be in the affirmative
The learned Single Judge expressed the view that non compliance with the notice would result only in a temporary lease of the land to outsiders and this conse quence was not sufficient to justify the sale of a portion of the lands on grounds of necessity
We however agree with the Division Bench on this
A land owner receiving a notice under the said Act has two options before him
He can either own his helplessness to reclaim the land and permit it to be leased out by the Government to other persons for cultivation for a substantial period
Or he may decide that he should make an attempt to make at least a part of the lands fertile by selling a portion of the land and reclaim ing the rest 774 with the help of the sale proceeds
A bona fide decision taken by him to exercise the latter option cannot be said not to be an act of good management
We think that if the sale in favour of Nathu Ram in the same circumstances was a valid sale and we agree with the Division Bench on this it is very difficult to say that the sale in favour of Sardha Ram was not
The necessity for both the sales was the situation arising out of the receipt of the notice under the Punjab Land Utilisation Act
Indeed we think that the find ings of the trial court and first appellate court on this issue were findings of fact which did not call for interfer ence by the High Court
Learned counsel for the respondent drew our attention to the findings of the Learned Single Judge that according to DW 2 the vendor was a drunkard given to licentious habits
The trial court and first appellate court have examined the entire evidence and recorded a finding to the contrary
That apart all that DW 2 said was The charac ter of Nawal Singh is bad
He drinks and is also a womanis er DW 2 however also said that Nawal Singh had sold the land for managing the work of cultivation
It is there fore difficult to draw from DW2 s testimony the inference that the sale of the land had been necessitated by the immoral activities of the vendor and that there was no real necessity to sell the land
The Division Bench rightly has attached no importance to this aspect of the case
For the reasons mentioned above we are of opinion that the sale in favour of Sardha Ram was a valid sale and is not liable to be impugned by the representatives or the succes sors in interest of Nawal Singh
This appeal is therefore allowed and the judgment of the first appellate court is restored
In the circumstances however we make no order as to costs
TNA Appeal allowed


Summary:
Respondent No 1 the Provident Fund Commissioner called upon the appellant Food Corporation of India to deposit contribution payable by it under the Employees  Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 and the scheme thereunder in respect of workers employed by the contrac tors appointed by the appellant for handling storing and transporting food grains and other articles in its depots in Rajasthan
On appellant s non compliance Respondent No 1 made an order under Section 7A of the Act determining the amount payable by the appellant
Against the aforesaid order the appellant filed writ petition before the High Court which dismissed the same
Hence the appeal by spe cial leave by the appellant Corporation
It was contended that the appellant was denied a reason able opportunity to produce actual proof of identification of workers in respect of whom contribution was payable inasmuch as Respondent No 1 neither gave notice to contrac tors who were in possession of the relevant lists of work ers nor made them parties to the proceedings despite its repeated requests
Allowing the appeal HELD The Commissioner while conducting an inquiry under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Mis cellaneous Provisions Act 1952 has the same powers as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure for trying a suit
Thus the Commissioner is authorised to enforce attendance in person and also to examine any person on oath
He has the power requiring the discovery and pro duction of documents
This power was given to the Commis sioner to decide not abstract questions of law but only to determine actual concrete differences in payment of contri bution and other dues by identifying the 756 workmen
The Commissioner should exercise all his powers to collect all evidence and collate all material before coming to proper conclusion
That is the legal duty of the Commis sioner
It would be failure to exercise the jurisdiction particularly when a party to the proceedings requests for summoning evidence from a particular person
757H 758A F H In the instant case the appellant Corporation had some problems in collating the lists of all workers engaged in depots scattered at different places
It requested the respondent Commissioner to summon the contractors to pro duce the respective lists of workers engaged by them
Howev er the appellant Commissioner did not summon the contrac tors nor the lists maintained by them
The matter is therefore remitted to the Commissioner for fresh disposal
757F 759A