JOGINDER KAUR Vs. COLLECTOR AGRARIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed under the following circumstances :-

(2.) According to the return filed by the respondents, the surplus areas have not been utilized by the Government and the possession of these surplus areas have not been taken. The question of payment of compensation would arise only after the possession has been taken under Section 32-E.

(3.) Even though paragraphs 1 to 4 of the petition have been admitted in the return filed on behalf of the respondents, I find that the documents produced relate only to the surplus areas which were in the possession of the petitioners' tenants. In the chart or extract from the allotment file of the tenants (Annexure A) small parcels of land shown as surplus areas of the tenants are given at the top. The names of the tenants mentioned in paragraphs 4 and 18 of the petition find a place in the names given at the top of this chart or extract. At serial numbers 1 to 27 underneath, are given the names of the allottees or eligible tenants. It is mentioned at the top that 133.19 standard acres in all have been declared as surplus area in village Kishangarh Saida Singhwala and a final notification in respect thereto has been published in the Gazette. The Collector was to be requested in writing to take proceedings regarding transfer of possession. It was mentioned that compensation shall be assessed after the fixation of the fair rent of the surplus area allotted to these eligible tenants. The two entries in the Patwari's Roznamcha also refer to the surplus areas of the tenants who were cultivating lands in excess of their permissible limit and there is no report about delivery of any actual physical possession to any allottees. It is the petitioners' own case that their old tenants continued to be in actual physical possession of the areas including their surplus areas.