1. The facts relevant to the matter here are that on May 25, 1955 an area ot 100-Kanals was allotted to sahan Singh under e Scheme for the Rehabilitation of political sufferers. This allotment was made under the (Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 thereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A lease deed was executed with regard to this allotment on May 28, 1955 which is at Annexure R/2, to !he return filed by respondent 5:
2: On April 27, 1978, the said Sohan Singh died. The Collector, Hissar, thereafter passed an under (Annexure P/1) on 25-2-1977 directing the Tehsildar, Hissar. to enter they,. reputation in respect of this land in favour of the petitioner Smt. Tshar Kaur, who it is said was the widow of Sohan Singh; mutation of this land had also been sought by Narinder Singh respondent 5, who was the brother of the said Sohan Singh. This application was, however, declined.
3. It appeals that Narinder Singh respondent 5 questioned the mutation of this land in favour of the petitioner by filing an application before the Commissioner, Hissar Division, of March 28, 1977. The Commissioner took cognizance of this application and passed an order on April.27, 1977, whereby he set aside the order of the Collector, Hissar of February 25, 1977 (Annexure Ph) on the ground that the order of the Collector was void and illegal as the mutation had been entered without the approval in writing of the Commissioner.
4. The Commissioner, Hissar, wrote a letter to the petitioner Smt. Ishar Kaur on the same day that s, April 27, 1977 (Annexure P/31 whereby he directed her to obtain a succession certificate from the Civil Court to the effect that she was the legally wedded wife of Sohan Singh deceased and it was further mentioned. therein that the question of mutating the land in her favour would be considered thereafter.
5. Before proceeding further another fact which deserves note here is that on May 17, 1977 Narinder Singh, respondent 5; filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Tarn Taran, seeking a declaration that the petitioner Smt. Ishar Kaur was not thc legally wedded wife of his brother Sohan Singh. This. suit was dismissed as not maintainable on 20-10-1977. It is stated that no appeal was filed against. thus order nor was any other suit filed in this behalf.
6. Mr. B. S. Khoji, counsel for the petitioner in seeking to challenge the impugned order of the Commissioner of Hissar of April 27, 1977 (Annexure PiZ) and the letter written by the Commissioner to the petitioner on the same day (Annexure P/3) adverted to the provisions of Section 19 of the Act. The transfer of certain rights in land are rendered void in terms of this provision of law A reading that of would, however, show that the transfers mentioned therein are inter vivos, Once, however, the original tenant die the matter has then to bc dealt with in terms of Section 20 of the Act. The Commissioner, Hissar, the. clearly fell in error in falling upon the provisions of Section 19 of the Act to set aside the order of the Collector of 25-2-1977 (Annexure P/i).
7. In the return filed on behalf of the Commissioner, Hissar Division, his action was sought to be justified by a reference to the provisions of Sections 11 and 13, Punjab Land Revenue Act. These provisions are clearly of no avail to the respondents here. Section 7 of the Act specifically provides that the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act shall apply, but only subject to the provisions of this Act. There is no provision in this Act under which the Commissioner could have questioned or interfered with the order of the Collector. In the absence of any such provision recourse to the provisions of Land Revenue Act for interference here is clearly unwarranted.
8. Counsel for respondent 5 conceded that the order passed by the Collector, Hissar (Annexure P/I), was within jurisdiction. The only point he sought to urge was that the allotment of land in this case was not to Sohan Singh in his individual capacity but to the joint Hindu family consisting of Sohan Singh:,and his brother Narinder Singh ot which he (Sohan Singh) was the Karta. This is a plea without any foundation on the record:of this case. The lease deed (Annexure R/2) records only the name of Sohan Singh. There is no mention of this allotment being to Sohan Singh as Karta nor is there any indication that any other person had any interest therein. Indeed, counsel for thc respondent could point to no material on record here such a point may have been raised by Nariinder Singh at any earlier stage.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order of the Commissioner, Hissar Division of April 27, 1977 (Annexure P121 as a)so the direction contained in his later (Annexure P/3) of the same day are hereby quashed. To the result, the order of the Collector, Hissar, of 25-21977 must stand and the mutation must consequently be entered in the name of the petitioner as directed therein. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits as may arise therefrom. This writ petition is thus accepted with costs. Counsel's fee Rs 250/-.
10. Petition allowed.