Case: SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD Vs. RAJ KUMAR RAJINDER SINGH(D)THRU LRS

to gain by anothers loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. Jagannath was working as a clerk with Chunilal Sowcar. He purchased the property in the court auction on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. He had, on his own volition, executed the registered release deed (Exhibit B-1S) in favour of Chunilal Sowcar regarding the property in dispute. He knew that the appellants had paid the total decretal amount to his master Chunilal Sowcar. Without disclosing all these facts, he filed the suit for the partition of the property on the ground that he had purchased the property on his own behalf and not on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. Non-production and even non- mentioning of the release deed at the trial tantamounts to playing fraud on the court. We do not agree with the observations of the High Court that the appellants-defendants could have easily produced the certified registered copy of Exhibit B-15 and non- suited the plaintiff. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.? 73. In K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi, (1998) 3 SCC 573 , it was observed that one of the examples cited as an abuse of the process of the court is re- litigation. It is an abuse of the process of the court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to re-litigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. 74. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision rendered in Ujjagar Singh v. Collector, Bhatinda, (1996) 5 SCC 14 , wherein this Court examined the effect of coming into force of Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 and vesting of the surplus area in the State. In this case, the area in possession of landlord was declared surplus under the Pepsu Act, but possession had not been taken by the State. It was held that area did not vest finally as the surplus area under the Pepsu Act, owing to coming into force of the new Act, the ceiling area must be determined afresh under the new Punjab Act. In the instant case, the order was passed in ceiling matter in the year 1980 and the adjudication order of Collector (Ceiling) was not questioned nor the order of remand to declare land as surplus and then the additional land was declared surplus in 1993. It was not the case of re-opening of the case. In fact, the land has vested in the State under the Abolition Act. Thereafter, compensation has been obtained, obviously once land has vested in the State, the possession of such land/open land is deemed to be that of the owner. In any view of the matter, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, compensation could not have been claimed. 75. In State of H.P. v. Harnama, (2004) 13 SCC 534, this Court observed that possession of land was not taken and the tenant was in occupation of the land and had acquired ownership rights before the land was declared surplus as against the landlord. It was further observed that the land in question had been notified as surplus and the fact that the original owner of the land had been paid compensation, would be of no avail to the State if before the date of actual vesting non-occupant tenant in possession of the land had acquired ownership rights. It is totally distinguishable and cannot be applied to the instant case. 76. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent has referred to the decision rendered in Madan Kishore v. Major Sudhir Sewal, (2008) 8 SCC 744 , wherein question arose with respect to entitlement of sub- tenant to apply under Section 27(4). It was held that the expression in Section 27(4), such tenant who cultivates such land, does not entitle a sub-tenant either to claim proprietary rights or apply for the same under Section 27(4). It was held that he was not a sub-tenant. The decision is of no help to the cause espoused on behalf of LRs. of Rajinder Singh. In the peculiar facts projected in the case the principle fraud vitiates is clearly applicable it cannot be ignored and overlooked under the guise of the scope of proceedings under Section 18/30 of the LA Act. In Re Q. No.5 Bona fide Transferees : 77. With respect to the appeals filed by SJVN Ltd. arising out of judgment and order of 2013 in the matter of bona fide transferees, filed in the year 2014, the High Court has held that the respondents are bona fide transferees from Rajinder Singh. However, it was pointed out on behalf of the appellants that in 72 reference cases, the regular first appeal is still pending in the High Court. It has been held by the Reference Court that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. In case regular first appeal is pending in the High Court as against the order of reference court against the respondents who claim to be bona fide transferees, obviously, the question of bona fide transferee has to be decided finally in the pending regular first appeal before the High Court. In case appeal has not been filed or has been decided, the compensation to follow the decision. We do not propose to give final verdict on issue at this stage. We leave the question open to the High Court to adjudicate. However, in case compensation has been paid to transferees, the compensation paid shall not be recovered till such time pending appeal is decided. In case no matter against transferees is pending and appeal has been decided in favour of land owners, obviously they have to be paid and this Order will not come in the way.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]42. A reading of section 27 makes it clear that on the abolition of estates except for the land which is under personal cultivation of the landowner, vests in the State. Vesting is automatic and would not depend upon the payment of compensation and this has already been held by this Court vide order dated 17.9.1969 in the case filed by Late RajinderSingh. It is crystal clear that vesting of the land is not confined to the land held under the tenancy right. The expression used in section 27 is ?landowner? who holds the land. Thus, there is no scope for the submission that section 27 is applicable only to a land held by the tenant in tenancy. It is applicable to all kinds of land asdefined in the Abolition Act held by the landowner and the definition of the land in Abolition Act is inclusive and would include all kinds of land in a town or village which is not occupied by any site of the building. Thus, all land which is not occupied by any building situated in a town or building would vest in the State and a land whichhas been let for agricultural purpose or for purposes subservient to agriculture or for pasture including the sites of building and other structure of the land, orchard, and ghasnies would vest in the State. Thus, it is apparent that the land which is Banjar, Abadi, Gharat, Kalhu, and Gair-Mumkin are all covered under the definition of land.The big estates were sought to be abolished by the H.P. Abolition Act. When section 27 of the Abolition Act and definition of land is read with ‘holding? and ‘estate? and ‘landowner? as defined in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 it is clear that the land held by late Rajinder Singh definitely exceeded revenue of Rs.125 per year as is apparent from documents and various orders passed in the case. The object of the Abolition Act is to provide for the abolition of big landed estates and to bring land reform in the law relating to tenancies and to make provisions for matters connected therewith. The land holding of Late Rajinder Singh was a big estate and was definitely covered under the purview of the Act and in particular under section 27 and all the lands vested in the State except the land under his personal cultivation.Thus, we are of the considered opinion thatthe area under personal cultivation which was saved in favour of Rajinder Singh was 64 bighas 12 Biswas only as specified. It is apparent from the order dated 27.2.1962 Khata No.1 Kita measuring 1011 bighas 6 Biswas vested in the ownership of Government of Himachal Pradesh in village Jhakri. In the review on 19.9.1964, there was only partial modification with respect to area 14 bighas 12 Biswas. The land revenue of land at Jakhri as apparent from Jamabandi of 1955-56 at the time when the Abolition Act came into force was Rs.155.58 it was more than Rs.125 as such the land which was Banjar kadim or otherwise not under personal cultivation had vested in the State.The fact is conclusively established that land in question had been declared as surplus and compensation under the Ceiling Act had also been received, even though the land had already vested in the Stateunder the Abolition Act. Once the disputed land had been admittedly declared surplus in Ceiling Act vide order dated 30.6.1980, there was no question of payment of compensation to Rajinder Singh or to his legal representatives in proceedings initiated later on in the year 1987 under the L.A. Act. The Land Acquisition Collector in 1989 was justified in directing that the compensation determined should not be paid due to the effect of the Ceiling Act and that question was raisedin the Reference Court also, it was incumbent upon the Reference Court to go into the aforesaid aspects. It was not fact situation that question of the title has been disputed and decided in reference proceedings but whether Rajinder Singh or his LRs. were entitled to claim compensation in view of the proceedings and that orders passed under the Abolition Act and Ceiling Act were definitely required to be gone into.Thus, we are of the considered opinion thatonce land has been declared surplus and compensation has been received. It was not open to receive it again in the land acquisition case. (iii) In Re: Effect of withdrawal of C.S. No.15/1970 inThe proceedings were initiated in the year 1987for the acquisition of land whereas the order of ceiling was passed earlier in 1980 and 1985  subsequently the surplus area was increased in 1993. By no stretch of any principle of law, Late Rajinder Singh or his successors could have claimed compensation in the proceedings in questioninitiated under the LA Act in the year 1987. In our considered opinion the respondents Rajinder Singh and his family were not entitled to claim any monetary compensation under the LA Act for the said land. The amount that had been withdrawn under the LA Act, was wholly impermissible and tantamount to playing fraud upon the legal system. As a matter of fact, compensation has been taken for the land in the proceedings under the Abolition Act. Even if compensation in respect of certain land was not payable or paid, vesting would not depend upon the same. Land not under personal cultivation of Jagirdars had vested in the State, as such it was not open even to obtain compensation for the very same land either under the provisions of the Ceiling Act which has been received or under the provisions of the LA Act. It was wholly impermissible and illegal and tantamountto scam committed by fraudsters. The cases were withdrawn one after the other just to perpetuate the fraud on the legal system by raising the inconsistent pleas and taking unfair and undue advantage of the wrong continuation of entries in the revenuethe instant case, there had been earlier proceedings which makes it clear that Rajinder Singh was not entitled to claim compensation under the LA Act. It is apparent that there was no subsisting right, title or interest left with Rajinder Singh or his LRs., thus, they could not be permitted to obtain thethe instant case, the order was passed in ceiling matter in the year 1980 and the adjudication order of Collector (Ceiling) was not questioned nor the order of remand to declare land as surplus and then the additional land was declared surplus in 1993. It was not the case of re-opening of the case. In fact, the land has vested in the State under the Abolition Act.Thereafter, compensation has been obtained, obviously once land has vested in the State, the possession of such land/open land is deemed to be that of the owner. In any view of the matter, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, compensation could not have been claimed.H.P. v. Harnama, (2004) 13 SCC 534, this Court observed that possession of land was not taken and the tenant was in occupation of the land and had acquired ownership rights before the land was declared surplus as against the landlord. It was further observed that the land in question had been notified as surplus and the fact that the original owner of the land had been paid compensation, would be of no avail to the State if before the date of actual vesting non-occupant tenant in possession of the land had acquired ownership rights.It is totally distinguishable and cannot be applied to the instantwas held that the expression in Section 27(4), such tenant who cultivates such land, does not entitle a sub-tenant either to claim proprietary rights or apply for the same under Section 27(4).It was held that he was not a sub-tenant. The decision is of no help to the cause espoused on behalf of LRs. of Rajinder Singh. In the peculiar facts projected in the case the principle fraud vitiates is clearly applicable it cannot be ignored and overlooked under the guise of the scope of proceedings under Section 18/30 of the LA Act.With respect to the appeals filed by SJVN Ltd. arising out of judgment and order of 2013 in the matter of bona fide transferees, filed in the year 2014, the High Court has held that the respondents are bona fide transferees from Rajinder Singh. However, it was pointed out on behalf of the appellants that in 72 reference cases, the regular first appeal is still pending in the High Court. It has been held by the ReferenceCourt that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. In case regular first appeal is pending in the High Court as against the order of reference court against the respondents who claim to be bona fide transferees, obviously, the question of bona fide transferee has to be decided finally in the pending regular first appeal before the High Court. In case appeal has not been filed or has been decided, the compensation to follow the decision. We do not proposeto give final verdict on issue at this stage. We leave the question open to the High Court to adjudicate. However, in case compensation has been paid to transferees, the compensation paid shall not be recovered till such time pending appeal is decided. In case no matter against transferees is pending and appeal has been decided in favour of land owners, obviously they have to be paid and this Order will not come in the way.