PAVITAR KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment and order of mine will dispose of Civil Writ Nos. 1597 and 2810 of 1966 as common questions of law and fact are involved in both these petitions. In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be necessary to recapitulate certain salient features which I am narrating from Civil Writ No. 1597 of 1966.

(2.) The petitioners, Pavitar Kaur and Pritam Kaur are co-widows of Mukand Singh who left considerable agricultural land in the erstwhile Sangrur State. On the death of Mukand Singh, husband of the petitioners, the whole property left by him was entrusted to the Pepsu Court of Wards. Shrimati Pavitar Kaur along with her three daughters and Pritam Kaur petitioners were getting maintenance from the Pepsu Court of Wards till 1962 when the property was released and was handed over to the petitioners. It is further stated that during the life time of Mukand Singh, the entire agricultural land owned by him was under the possession of the tenants and even after his death, the tenants continued to remain in possession of the land. They used to pay the rent firstly to him and after his death to the management of Pepsu Court of Wards. Mukand Singh was a big landlord and he brought most of the area under cultivation and settled the tenants for very nominal rent because the tenants had rendered personal or other services to him.

(3.) After the coming into force of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") every big landowner in the State had to file a return in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The petitioners could not file any return as till 1962 the land vested in the Pepsu Court of Wards. After the release of the property from the Pepsu Court of Wards, the petitioners were served with a draft statement by the Special Collector, respondent No. 4, showing an area of 1079.25 standard acres as surplus with the petitioners. Against the said draft statement, the petitioners filed objection petition on the ground that whole land of theirs' was under the possession of the tenants and that area under gardens and ghair mumkin, had not been excluded. It was also objected that necessary parties had not been impleaded and the valuation had not been made in accordance with law. These objections did not find favour with the Special Collector, who vide his order dated April 9, 1965 declared 1079.25 standard acres as surplus (copy of the order is attached with the petition as Annexure 'A'). Aggrieved from the order of the Special Collector the petitioners preferred appeals but the same were dismissed by the learned Commissioner vide his order dated November 29, 1965 (copy Annexure 'C' to the petition). Still dissatisfied, the petitioners filed revision petitions but the same were rejected by the Financial Commissioner on February 10, 1966 (copy Annexure 'D' to the petition). It is in these circumstances, that the present writ petitions have been filed calling in question the legality and propriety of the orders passed by the revenue authorities.