HAKUMAT RAI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hakumat Rai, petitioner No. 1 owned 67 acres of land in villages Karnana and Kaman in district Jullundur. After the coming into force of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Punjab Act) Special Collector, Agrarian, Punjab somewhere in the years 1954-55 declared an area of 36 standard acres and 5 units of land surplus with Hakumat Rai. He was left with a permissible area of 30 standard acres. However, this area was not utilised for the resettlement of tenants till 6-5-1975 and remained in possession of the petitioners, Petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 are the adult sons of petitioner No. 1.

(2.) On the basis of a decree passed in a suit filed by Arjan Singh, petitioner No. 3 against other petitioners to the effect that he was owner in possession of the land measuring 90 Kanals 15 Marlas, mutation was sanctioned. The petitioners are progressive farmers. They invested huge sums of money on the land in dispute. They installed three tube wells; purchased three tractors for the cultivation of the land; constructed two farm houses and planted an orchard over a portion of the land.

(3.) On an application filed by petitioner No. 1, the District Collector, Jullundur, in exercise of the powers conferred on him, by Rule 8 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'), framed under the provisions of the Act, classified the petitioner's farm in the category 'A' of well run farm vide his orders dated 16-5-1966. This order was passed on the basis of spot inspection made by the members of the Board and verification of the record of yields made by the District Agriculture Officer. On the basis of the inspection and analysis by the Board and the revenue authorities, the petitioners farm secured more than 85 per cent marks. The land declared surplus with petitioner No. 1 was thus riot utilised and it was granted exemption under Rule 8 of the Rules from being utilised for the resettlement of the tenants. The petitioners continued to cultivate their lands efficiently and diligently with the result that they were able to maintain the position of category 'A' well-run farm till the filing of the writ petition. However, the last inspection was made in the year 1973.