Case: Dasaudha Singh &amp; Ors. Etc. Etc Vs. State Of Haryana &amp; Ors

2. We need state the facts only in C.A. 825/72 (Dasaudha Singh & others v. State of Haryana). The Collector, Karnal leased out area of 1154 acres in villages Pehowa and Murtzapur jointly to Karnal Co-operative Society Ltd., Pehowa and the Lyalpur Co-operative Joint Farming Society, Murtzapur under Section 5 of the Act. Owing to some dispute, which arose subsequent to the lease between the two societies the Registrar gave an award on the matter having been referred to him for arbitration. According to that award the entire land in village Murtzapur and 172 acres of land in village Pehowa were given to the Lyalpur Society and the remaining 357 acres of land in village Pehowa to the Karnal Society. The lease was originally for a certain number of years but it was extended for a period of twenty years, which is the maximum period for which a lease could be granted under the Act. By a notice dated May 17, 1971 the Sub-divisional Officer, Kaithal, issued a notice to the lessees under Section 7 of the Act. In the notice it was stated,inter alia, that the original owners had applied for the return of the land leased out as the period of the lease had expired. The lessees were required to hand over possession to the original owners. On June 15, 1971 the Sub-divisional Officer passed an order directing the Tehsildar to take possession of the land and give actual possession thereof to the original owners. These proceedings were challenged in the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The High Court disposed of the writ petition together with the other writ petitions which had been filed on similar grounds by a common judgment dismissing all the petitions.      3. In order to appreciate the points in controversy the relevant provisions of the Act may be referred to as also the background in which the Act came to be enacted. According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons in the Bill large tracts of fertile land had remained uncultivated due to the negligence or absence of displaced local landlords. The policy of the Government was not to leave any cultivable land unsown as far as possible, which was necessary to attain self-sufficiency in the matter of food. If timely action were not taken a large portion of the population would have to face starvation after 1950 when it was proposed to stop all imports of food grains from abroad. The Government had tried its best to persuade the landlords to cultivate the lands. There was, however, likelihood of large tracts of fertile and cultivable lands remaining unsown during Rabbi 1949–50. The Bill, which was introduced, was, therefore, aimed at bringing about all available land in the East Punjab under fodder and food grains crops.

Reasoning:
It is difficult to understand how the Jamabandi entry helps the appellants at all. It seems to indicate that the persons who were shown, as tenants at will were cultivating it under the societies which were the lessees. They could not, therefore, claim any better rights then the societies which were the tenants of the Collector and amenable to his Jurisdiction under the Act. It may be mentioned that in the High Court this point does not appear to have been argued and we do not have the benefit of any finding of that Court on that point. It has, further, been submitted on behalf of the appellants that before any orders were made under Section. 7 of the Act the tenants or the persons in occupation of the lands in question should have been given an opportunity of being heard to satisfy the well-settled rule of natural justice. Under Section 7 the Collector has to decide and name the owners to whom possession shall be given. The tenant can have no locus stand in that matter in which if there were any rival claimants they alone would be interested. The scheme of Section 7 is such that it is not possible to read into it any requirement of a notice being issued to the tenants before any order is made by the Collector under that section14. Before the High Court only in one case i.e. C.W. 2171/71 it was pointed out that the petitioners therein had purchased 6 acres of land from the original land owner and as such the Collector could not legally dispossess them from that portion of the land. The Additional Advocate General conceded that in case that area had been purchased by the petitioners in that writ petition they would not be dispossessed and the possession would be restored to them if dispossession had taken place. On behalf of a number of appellants it has been contended that several portions of lands in dispute have been purchased from the original owners and the purchasers are actually in possession. It is not disputed by the counsel for the respondents that if any person has acquired the ownership rights in any of the lands which were the subject matter of the writ petition he can approach the Collector who will consider his case fully and if it is proved that he has become an owner then his possession will not be disturbed and no orders will be made with regard to the area in his occupation or possession under Section 7. This will fully safeguard the interest of those persons who have acquired ownership rights either before or during the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court or even in this Court15. Lastly we cannot help observing that the appellants will be put to a good deal of hardship by being asked to give up all lands which they had been cultivating for so many years and which probably are the main source of their livelihood. But that hardship could be alleviated or some relief given by legislation alone. The Court unable to do anything in the matter.