JINDO Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Jindo, petitioner, owns 219 Kanals of land in village Majorwala, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, which falls within the territory of erstwhile State of Pepsu. The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter called 'the Pepsu Act') was enforced in this territory. The petitioner did not own any other land within the erstwhile State of Pepsu. She did not own or hold land in excess of the permissible limit within the areas of the Pepsu State. As such, she did not file any return under Section 32-B of the Pepsu Act. The land of the petitioner while converted into standard acres comes to 19-10 standard acres which is far less than the permissible limit of 40 standard acres for displaced persons. The petitioner is a displaced person from Pakistan. The Pepsu Act came into force on 30th of October, 1956.

(2.) Chanan Singh, who is respondent No. 3 to this petition, is a tenant under the petitioner. Karnail Singh and Ajit Singh sons of Chanan Singh have been impleaded as respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

(3.) The petitioner filed suit for ejectment against Chanan Singh on the ground that she needed the land for her personal cultivation. The tenancy in this case was created after 1956. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Kapurthala, decreed the suit of the petitioner on 15th May, 1974 and ordered the ejectment of Chanan Singh. He, however, directed that Chanan Singh shall not be dispossessed unless he was resettled on 5 standard acres of land. Chanan Singh filed an appeal before the Collector, who partly accepted the same on 26th August, 1974 and remanded the case for fresh decision on issue No. 1. He upheld the findings on the other issues. He also held that Ajit Singh and Karnail Singh were not sub-tenants. Issue No. 1 was in the following terms :-