Holding

A mere order of allotment without possession, certificate, and execution of required documents does not complete the utilisation of surplus land, and inheritance by an heir saves the land from being deemed utilised.

Summary

The original owner, Nathi, held about 46 acres, exceeding the permissible 30 acres, and the Collector declared 6 acres and 8 standard units as surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, allotting them to other tenants. After Nathi's death, his widow Kela Devi and mother Manda, each inheriting half of the remaining land, applied claiming no surplus existed because their individual holdings were below the permissible limit. The Collector rejected the application, stating the surplus had already been allotted, and the rejection was upheld by the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner. The High Court allowed the petition concerning the portion not yet possessed by other tenants, but the Division Bench dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court held that a mere order of allotment does not constitute "utilisation" of surplus land under Section 10‑A(a); utilisation is complete only when the allottee takes possession, receives a certificate, and executes the required documents, and that inheritance under Section 10‑A(b) saves the land from being deemed utilised.

Issues considered

Whether an order of allotment of surplus land to other tenants amounts to utilisation of the surplus area under Section 10‑A(a) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953.
Whether inheritance by heirs affects the utilisation of surplus land under clause (b) of Section 10‑A.
What constitutes completion of the utilisation process under the Act and its Rules.

Legislation cited

Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953s. 10-A(a), s. 10-A(b), s. 2(3)

Subjects

Punjab Security of Land Tenures Actsurplus landutilisationallotmentinheritanceresettlementpossessioncertificate of allotment

Judgment

1120

A FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER,' HARYANA AND OTHERS
v.
KELA DEVI AND ANOTHER
October 31, 1979
• [N. L. UNTWALIA, P. N. SHINGHAL AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.]
Punjc1b Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 Section 10(a)-Scope of-
Allotment of surplus land to tenants-When completed.

Out of 46-odd acres of land held by the original owner (bnsband of res-
pondent No. 1 and son of respondent No. 2), the Collector declared six odd
c acres as surplus area under section 2(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures
Act, 1953 and allotted them to two other tenants. On the death uf the original
owner the two heirs (respondents 1 and 2) made an application stating that
since the land inherited by each of them in equal shares was below the per111.is-
si~ area of 30" standard acres, there was no surplus area with then1 and that 1
therefore, no part of the land could be uulised for allotment to other tenan\s.
The Collector rejected their application on the ground that the surplus area ,
I> having been declared during the life time of the original owner, it could not
be excluded from the holding in the ~ands of the t\vo respondents. The res-
pondents failed in appeal and revision before the Commissioner and the Financial
Commissioner.
A single Judge of the High Court aUowed their petition under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution in so far as it relatl!d to the application of the land

• of which possession had not been given to the other tenants. A Division Bench
rejected the appellants appeal.

On the question whether mere allotment of land to other tenants amounted
to utilization of the surplus area when the re·settled tenant had not taken
possession.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : l. While section IOA(a) of the Act empowern the State Govern-
ment to utilize any surplus area for re-settlement of' tenants, the Act does not
define what is meant by order of utilization under the section. Clause (b) of
the section,.however, has the effect of saving the land comprised in the· surplus
area if it has been acquired by an heir by inheritance. Therefore, when an
heir succeeds by inheritance that basic fact would affect the utifization of the
G surplus area, even if an order Ji.ad been mad!e under section lOA(a) for ib- uti-
lization for the resettlement of other tenants but that order had not been -, ,
implemented. [1122H, 1123A-B]

2. A conspectus of the rules made under the Act also shows that while
allotment of land is an initial ,stage in the process of utilization of the surplus
area, it does not complete that process as it is· necessary for the allottee to obtain
H a certificate .of allotment, take possession of the land within the specified period •
"'1d execute' necessary documents thereafter. A mere order of allotment does
.
not have effect of completing that process. Rule 200 '
also
'
points to !lie con·
" F'lNANCIAL COMMISSIONER V. KELA DEVI (Shinghal, J.) 1121

clusion that a completed title does not pass to the allottee on a 111ere order A
of .allotment and that onler is defeasib!e if ihe other conditions prescribed by
· 'law· ar.e..not fulfilled. (1123 F-GJ
In the· instant case since the process of utilization of surplus area had not
been completed by the time the heirs made the application it was permissible
for the authorities to re-examine t1* question \vhether there was any surplus
area at all after the heirs had inherited the land in equal shares so as to reduce B
the area of the holding of each one of them below the· permissible area.
[1124 B·G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2522 of 1969.

·From the Judgment and Order dated 12-5-1969 of the Punjab and )
Haryana Higb Court in L.P. No. 8/69.
c
Ravindra Bana and M. N. Shroff for the Appellant.
T. S. Arora and M. L. Lahoty for the Respondent.
TJ)e Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SHINGHAL, J. One Nathi held 36 standard acres and 8 standard
units of land in village Bhanguri, and as the "permissible area" with-
in the meaning of clause (3) of section 2 of the Punjab Security of
Land Tenures Act, 1953, (hereafter referred to· as the Act) in his
case was 30 standard acres, Collector (Surplus) Nuh, declared 6
standard a~res and 8 standard units of land as "surplus area", by bis
order dated November 25, 1959. Nathi died on July 14, 1965, leav-
ing his widow Smt. Kela Devi respondent No. 1, and his mother Smt. E
Mando respondent No. 2, as heirs. The two heirs made an appHca-
tion under sections 10-A(b) and lOB of the Act stating that as the
land of Nathi had been inherited by them in equal shares, and the
holding with each one of them was much below the "permissible area"
of 3Q standard acres, there was no "surplus area" .within the meaning
of clause (5-a) of section 2 of the Ac~ and no part of it could there~
fore be utilised for allotment to other tenants. That application was
however dismissed by Collector (Surplus) on March 13, 1967, on l!1e
I gronnrl that the "surplus area" declared in Nathi's life time had already

t
been allotted to other tenants and could not be excluded from the
holding iiJ the hands of his widow and mother. An appeal was taken G
to the Commissioner of Anlbala, but it was dismissed on January 30,
1968, as he took the view that the order of allotment of the "surplus
area"' of Nathi's holding amounted to "utilisation" of that land under
secifon 10-A(a). A revision was taken 'to the Financial Commis-
sioner,, but it was rejected on May 8, 1968, for the same reason. Smt.
Kela Devi and Smt. Manda then approached the High Court of Punjab H
· and Haryana by a writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution. It was opposed by the present appellants on the gr8und
17- 743SCV79
1122 SUPREME COURT REP.OMS [19 8011 s.c.11..

that as the "surplus area" had been declared and allotted h>. vuious
tenantS during the life time of Nathi (except for an area of 8 ·kanals
in village Ghelab) the writ petitioners were not entitled to sueceed, as
the "surplus area" had alre~dy been utilised. It was also pleaded
that possession of eight pieces of Janel had already been deli:m"ed to

• the. tenants before the death of Nathi. The controversy before us docs
not relate to those pieces of land which had been allotted to ·yarious
ten~nts and of which possession was given to them during the life time
of Nathi.
\
The learned Single Judge of the High Court who initially he11rd the
writ petition allowed it by his judgment dated October 29, 1%8, in
c so far as it related to the portion of land of which possession had not
been given to other tenants and, to that extent, he set aside the above
men!ioncd orders of the Collector, the Commissionyr, and the Finan-
cial Commissioner by which the application of Smt. Kela De¥i and
Smt. Mando was rejected. An appeal" was taken to a Division Beach
D of the High Coiirt, )mt it was dismissed on May 12, 1969. That is
why the present appeal has been .{lled on the basis of the High Court's
certificate under Article 133(1) (c) of the Constitution.
The only question which therefore arises for considcratioa is
whether the High Court was right in taking the view that mere allot-
ment of land to other tenants under section 10-A(a) of the Act did
not ainount to utilisation of the "surplus area" when the re11ettled
tenants had not taken possession under the allotment ordm.
It is not in controversy that it had been finally decided that the
"surplus area" in the-case of Nathi was 6 standard acres and 8 stand-
ard units, and a decision to that effect was taken in his life time on
P ·November 25, 1959. It is also not in dispute that orders were llll!de
for the allotment of the "surpius area" to other tenants under section
10-A(a) of the Act which reads as follows-
"10-A(a) The State Government of any officer em-
powered by it in this behalf shall be competent to utilize any
G surplus area for the resettlement of tenants ejected, or to be·,._.
ejected, under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 9."

While therefore the section empowers the State Government or its
authorised officer to "utilise" any "surplus area" for the resettlement
of tenants, the Act does not define what is meant by an ord« of
II utilisation under the section. A clue to what is actually meant by that
expression, is however to be found in clause (b) of section 10-A
which provides as follows,-
/FINANCIAL COMM!SSIONER v. KELA DEVI (Shinghal, /.} 1123

"10-A (b) Notwithstanding anything contained in any 4
<ether law for the time Q<:ing in force and save in the case of
land acqui,red by the State Government under any law for
-the time being in force or by an heir by inheritance no trans-
fer or other disposition of land which is comprised in surplus
area at the commencement· of this Act, shall affect the utili-
zation thereof in clause (a)." •

1'he clause therefore has the effect of saving the land comprised in the
"surplus area", if it has been acquired by an heir by inheritance, So
where an heir succeeds by inheritance, as in this case, that basic fact
would affect the utilisation of the surplus area even if only an order
bas been made under clause (a) of section 10-A for its utilisation for c
the resettlement of other ' tenants but that order has not been
implemented.

In order to understand the .full meaning and effect to the provi-
~ions of section 10-A, it is necessary to make a cross-reference to rules
18, 20-A, 20-B and 20-C of the Punjab Security of Larud Tenures D
Rules, 1956 (hereafter referred to as the Rules). Rule 18 deals with
1he procedure for allotment of "surplus area" to other resettled
tenants. Rule 20-A provides for the issue of certificates of allotment
'Of lands to them, and rule 20-B provides for delivery of possession 8nd
makes it obligatory for the resettled tenant to take possession of the
land allotted to him within a period of two months or such extended E
period as may be allowed by the officer concerned. Rule 20cC pro-
vides, inter alia, for the execution of a "qabuliyat" or "patta" by a
Tesettled tenant. It would.thus appear that while allotment of land is
an initial stage in the process of utilisation of the "surplus area", it
<locs not complete that process as it is necessary for the allotte 0 to
F
-Obtain a certificate of allotment, take possession of the land within the
period specified for the purpose, and to execute a "qabuliyat" or
"patta" ia 1espect thereof, The process of utilisation contemplated by
section 10-A of the Act is therefore complete, in respect of any "sur-
plus area", only when possession thereof has been taken by the allottee
or the allottees and the other formalities have been comp!eied, and G
!"there is no force in the argument that a mere order of allotment has
the effect oCcompleting that process.

'Reference in this connection may also be made to rule 20-D of
the Rules which provides that in case a tenant does not take posses-
sion of the "surplus area" allotted to him for resettlement within the e
period specified therefor, the allotment shall be liable to be cancelled
and the area allotted to him may be utilised for the resettlement of

\
1124 '[1980] 1 S.C.l't.

A. another tenant. It cannot therefore be dobted that a ~ompleted title
does not pass to the allottee on a mere ·order of allotment, and that
order is defeasible if the other c6nditions prescribed by law are not
fulfilled. . . · .
' . • :i ..i " -: ~:
,. ± •' •

So. when the process of utilisation of Nathi's '.'siirplus area" had not
been completed by the time his heirs by inheritance niade the aforesaid
application to the authorities concerned, it wa8 permisSlble for those
authorities to re-examine the question wllether there was any "surplus
area'' at all after Nathi's holding had been inherited by his two heirs
in equal shares so as to reduce the area of the holding of each one of
them below the. permissible area. Tire High Court therefore rightly
c allowed· the writ petition of the respondents ..
As there is no force in this appeal, it is dismissed but, in the cir-
cumstances, we do not make any order as. to the costs.

P.B.R. Appeal dismis&ed.

l