Case: Sawarn Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others

2. Mahant Gurnarain, respondent No. 5, owned 182 standard acres andunits of land in several villages in the districts of Ambala, Hoshiarpur and Jallundur. The Special Collector, Chandigarh, respondent No. 4 herein, by an order dated March 3, 1961, declared an area of 132 standard acres, 11 1/2 units, out of the aforesaid land, as surplus area of the mahant under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (to be hereafter called the Act). Out of this surplus area, land admeasuring 13 standard acres and 1 1/2 units situate in the revenue estate of Dosanjh Kalan tehsil Phillaur was allotted by the Circle Revenue Officer to the appellants and respondent No. 7, and possession thereof was given to the on June 15, 1961 in accordance with Rule 20 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (hereinafter called the Rules).3. On September 18, 1961, the Special Collector excluded the entire area of respondent No. 5 in the revenue estate of village Dosanjh Kalan from the surplus pool. This excluded area included the aforesaid 13 standard acres and 11 1/2 units that had been allotted to the appellants. The Collector allowed this area to Jagga (respondent No. 6) and his brother, Meet Singh, as their permissible area on the ground that they were tenants of this land on April 15, 1953.4. Aggrieved, the appellants carried an appeal to the Commissioner (respondent No. 3), contending inter alia that Jagga and Meet Singh were not tenants of this land on the crucial date i.e. April 15, 1953. The Commissioner dismissed this appeal. A revision preferred by the appellants before the Financial Commissioner met the same fate on January 25, 1963. To impugn these orders of the Special Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, the appellants filed a writ petition (No. 173 of 1963) in the High Court. The petition was accepted by a learned Judge (Shamsher Bahadur, J.) who set aside those orders and remanded the case to the Special Collector with the direction that he should proceed afresh to determine the question after giving an opportunity of hearing to theAgainst that order of the learned Judge, Jagga preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court. The Bench dismissed the appeal.5. After the remand, the Special Collector reheard the parties and gave them opportunity to adduce further evidence on the point at issue, Jaggas contention was that in the agricultural yearhe and his brother, Meet Singh, sons of Rattan Singh, were in possession of this land as tenants under the landowner, and consequently this area could not be included in the surplus area of the landowner. The contention was accepted by the Special Collector, in these terms.In support of this, oral as well documentary evidence has been produced by Jagga, claiming to be an old tenant. In oral evidence, two witnesses have been examined. One is Shanti Sarup, Lambardar of village Dosanjh Kalan where the land in dispute is situated. The other is Karam Sigh, who is one of the new tenants resettled on the land already declared surplus with Mahant Gurnarain (landowner). In documentary evidence, certified copies of khasra girdawaries, Exhibits PB and PC, certified copies of pedigree table, Exhibit PD and receipt showing payment of lease money to Mahant Gurnarain and land revenue paid to Lambardar by Rattan Singh, the father of Jagga, Exhibits PI, PII, PIII, PIV, PV, PVI, PVII, PVIII, PIX, PX and PXI, have been produced. From the perusal of the entries in the certified copies of khasra girdawaries it appears that from 1948 to 1952 the cultivation of Rattan Singh son of Ishar Singh i.e. Jaggas father is entered. Inhowever the cultivation of Rattan Singh son of Dalip Singh is entered. Thereafter, again inMeet and Jagga sons of Rattan Singh, are entered upto 1961. It seems that the mistake made in the parentage of Rattan Singh, recording him as son of Dalip Singh inin khasra girdawari is nothing but a clerical error. Because further these entries find full support from the oral as well as other documentary evidence mentioned above, the continuance of tenancy of a son after the father is a solid proof which can safely be relied upon. I have, therefore, no hesitation in accepting the plea that Jagga is an old tenant and his area, therefore, should not be included in the surplus pool.6. In the result the Special Collector by his order dated May 11, 1965, rejected the pleas taken by the appellants and excluded the area in dispute, admeasuring 13 standard acres and 1 1/2 units, from the surplus area of the landowner and held it as permissible area of respondent No. 6 (Jagga) and his brother, Meet Singh.7. Against this order of the Special Collector, the appellants appealed to the Commissioner who by an order, dated May 25, 1965, dismissed the same and affirmed the order of the Special Collector. The appellants moved the Financial Commissioner in revision under Section 24 of the Act. The Financial Commissioner dismissed the revision on October 31, 1966 and affirmed the orders of the Special Collector and the Commissioner. A review petition filed by the appellants was also rejected by the Financial Commissioner on November 25, 1966.8. The appellants then on December 13, 1966, filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the orders of respondents Nos. 2 to 4. A learned Single Judge (Tek Chand, J.) by his judgment, dated September 14, 1967, dismissed the petition and upheld the orders passed by respondents Nos. 2 to 4. A Letters Patent appeal filed by the appellants was also dismissed by a Bench of the High Court on October 31, 1967. It is against this order that the appellants have come in appeal before us.

Reasoning: 14. Now in the case before us, as will be apparent from the passage extracted earlier from the order of the Special Collector, the finding in question was a finding of fact arrived at by him after an appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence on record. His finding that for the yearRattan Singh s/o Dalip Singh entered in the khasra girdawari as a tenant of the land was a misdescription of Rattan Singh son of Isher Singh could not be said to be patently wrong. According to the Collector, the tenancy of Rattan Singh son of Isher Singh continued without a break from 1948 to 1961, although after his death, fromonwards the tenancy was in the name of his sons, Jagga and Meet. The Collector found that for the yeardue to a clerical error, in the khasra girdawari, the name of Rattan Singhs father was shown as Dalip Singh, instead of Isher Singh. This mistake, according to the Special Collector, occurred because Dalip Singh was, according to the pedigree table on record, the real brother of Isher Singh, the father of Rattna Singh.15. Before the Collector, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that for the yearthe land in dispute was, in fact, cultivated by Rattan Singh s/o Gulzar Singh. This Gulzar Singh, though alive, was not examined. In any case, it was common ground that the parentage of Rattan Singh as entered in the khasra girdawari for the yearwas erroneous. This being the case, even on facts, the finding of the Special Collector that on April 15, 1953, Rattan Singh son of Isher Singh, the father of Jagga and Meet respondents, was in occupation of this land as a tenant, could not be said to be patently wrong, much less could it be a finding based on no evidence or on inadmissible evidence.16. According to the scheme of the Act, the Collector has to fix separately the permissible areas of the landowner as well as the tenants as on April 15, 1953. Accordingly, the Collector put the land in dispute in the permissible area of the tenant, Rattan Singh s/o Isher Singh, and excluded it from the surplus area of the landowner. Thus, the order of the Collector did not suffer from any error of law or of jurisdiction.17. The contention that some evidence was allowed to be tendered at the back of the appellant, does not appear to be tenable. Accordingto Mr. Garg, the evidence which was let in this manner, was a copy of the khatauni, and the examination of the patwari after the case had been heard and reserved for orders.There is no reference to this khatauni in the order of the Special Collector which is not based on it. The patwari was obviously examined in the presence of the parties or their Counsel. Indeed, he is said to have beenby the parties including the appellants. This belated examination of the patwari did not prejudice the appellants or any other party.18. It is true that the Commissioner at the outset misconceived the real point in issue and wrongly assumed that the appellants were claiming as protected tenants. But from a reading of his order as a whole, it appears that he did examine the evidence on record and towards the end of his order in the penultimate paragraph, did advert though briefly to the real point for determination and concurred with the Collector, that Jagga was an old tenant and as such the areas under his tenancy had to be excluded from the surplus area of the landowner. In any case, the Financial Commissioner in revision discussed the matter in controversy with sufficient reference to the documentary and oral evidence on record, and came to aconclusion that the finding of the Collector as to the father of Jagga and Meet being an old tenant in occupation of the land in the crucial yearwas correct. He found no reason to disturb that concurrent finding of fact.19. In view of this, the deficiency or reference to some irrelevant matters in the order of the Commissioner, had not prejudiced the decision of the case on merits either at the appellate or revisional stage. There is authority for the proposition that where the order of a domestic tribunal makes reference to several grounds, some relevant and existent, and others irrelevant andthe order will be sustained if the Court is satisfied that the authority would have passed the order on the basis of the relevant and existing grounds, and the exclusion of irrelevant orgrounds could not have affected the ultimate decision [see State of Maharashtra v. B. K. Takkamore (supra); State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra (1963 Supp 1 SCR 648 : AIR 1963 SC 779   : (1963) 1 LLJ 239  )].20. For the foregoing reasons, we are of opinion that the High Court was right in holding that there was no justification for interference with the impugned orders in the exercise of certiorari jurisdiction.