VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kulwant Rai was a big landowner. Kundan Lal was a tenant under him. Kulwant Rai died in 1960. He was succeeded amongst other by Inderjit and Ravi Raj, his sons. Kundan Lal became a tenant under Inderjit and Ravi Raj. The Collector, Abohar, took up the cases for the determination of the surplus areas of Inderjit and Ravi Raj. He did not issue any notice to Kundan Lal. He did not hear him and declared 5.64.55 Hectares of land surplus with each of the two brothers Inderjit and Ravi Raj. Before the passing of the orders on 20th of September, 1976, Kundan Lal had died on 19th June 1976. He left behind his son Vijay Kumar, widow Smt. Durga Bai, daughters, namely Nirmal Devi, Chand Kumari, Usha Rani and Kumari Vimple, who have joined as petitioners in the present writ petition. Before the passing of the orders, the Collector did not associate or hear any of these petitioners, who were heirs of Kundan Lal.

(2.) Mr. G.L. Nagpal, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that Kundan Lal was a tenant on the land in dispute since 1955. He was a tenant on this land on 24th of January, 1971, which is the prescribed date under the provisions of Punjab Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'). He contended that the landowner has not been given absolute discretion to select his permissible area under Section 5 of the Act. The priorities for such selection have been given. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act which is relevant for the determination of the controversy between the parties is reproduced below :-

(3.) The learned counsel has also contended that when the State takes over the land declared surplus, all the rights of the tenants in such land are extinguished, by virtue of the provisions of Section 8 of the Act. The relevant portions of Section 8 are reproduced below :-