RAM GOPAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who were allotted land in 1977 out of the surplus area of respondent No. 4 Raja Ram Partap Singh, have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 16.6.1993 vide which Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala directed Collector, Agrarian, Barnala to re-determine permissible and surplus area of respondent No. 4 under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter described as the Punjab Act and indirectly set aside the order passed by Special Collector, Punjab under Section 30-D(2) of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1955 (hereinafter described as the Pepsu Act). They have also prayed for quashing consequential order dated 10.6.1994 passed by the Collector, Agrarian, Barnala.

(2.) The facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are that by an order dated 4.8.1969 passed under the Pepsu Act, Special Collector, Punjab declared 54.70 standard acres of land belonging to respondent No. 4 - Raja Ram Partap Singh as surplus area. Appeal filed by him was dismissed by Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala on 4.11.1969 and revision was dismissed by Financial Commissioner, Punjab vide order dated 22.3.1971. He challenged orders dated 4.8.1969, 4.11.1969 and 22.3.1971 by filing civil suit which was dismissed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Barnala vide judgment and decree dated 7.3.1975. The same was upheld by Additional District Judge, Barnala while dismissing appeal of respondent No. 4. Thereafter, the State Government got possession of surplus land which was allotted to the petitioners and others in pursuance of order dated 28.6.1977 passed by Collector, Agrarian, Barnala. In the meantime, respondent No. 4 filed return under Rule 5 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1973 for selecting permissible area under the Punjab Act by claiming that he had two adult sons and they were entitled to separate units. That case was finalised by Collector, Agrarian, Barnala vide order Annexure P8 dated 28.9.1978. The relevant extract of that order is reproduced below :-

(3.) "After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is found that the land which has been sold by the land owner before the commencement of the Act, the vendees are in possession of the same according to record. The vendees do not appear to be related to the land owner or his family. The sale deeds which are mentioned in the list Ex PB have been executed between 24.1.1971 and 24.1973. These sale deeds are declared as bonafide and the land comprised in the list PC regarding sales after 2.4.1973, should be included in the holdings of the land owner. Besides this the area in possession of the old tenants measuring 0-75-14 is not under cultivation of the land owner. It is not appropriate to include this land within the holding of the land owner. The report made by Patwari Pritam Singh has been placed on record. According to the report of the revenue staff, this land and his family has below mentioned area :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_220_LAWS(P&H)8_2001_1.html</FRM>