RAM CHANDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Writ Petition Nos. 693, 694 and 730 of 1970 have been filed separately by three brothers, Ram Chander, Ram Parshad and Birkha Ram respectively, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. As the questions of law and fact involved in these three writ petitions are almost the same, these are being disposed of together. Any differences of minor detail in so far as they seem to affect the final decision would be referred to in this judgment.

(2.) The petitioners are landowners in village Amarheri, tehsil and district Jind and proceedings for the declaration of their surplus areas were started by the Collector (Agrarian Reforms), Sangrur in the year 1961-62 under the Pepsu. Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter briefly referred to as 'the Principal Act'). Draft statements about their holdings had been prepared by the Naib-Tehsildar and the case had been referred to the Pepsu Land Commission. These draft statements were served on the petitioners and they had filed their objections in which the main contention raised by each one of them was that he constituted a joint Hindu family with his sons. This plea had succeeded with the Collector (Agrarian) in the case of Ram Chander and Ram Parshad petitioners and as the share of each member of the joint Hindu family was found to be less than the permissible limits, no further action for the assessment of the surplus areas of these landowners was advised by the Collector's order dated 13.2.1962 (Annexure 'A'). In Birkha Ram's case, however, it was found that he had no son or other male member of the family who could be regarded as his coparcener under the Hindu Law. After excluding the land validly sold to one Mam Chand, an area of 9 standard acres and 9-1/2 units was declared to be surplus area of Birkha Ram, petitioner in C.W. No. 730 of 1970. It may appear that this was against the draft statement prepared by the Patwari according to which an area of 24 standard acres and 14 units should have been declared as the surplus area of this landowner.

(3.) As these landowners appeared satisfied with these orders of the Collector (Agrarian), there was no appeal or revision under sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 32-D of the Principal Act for a period of about six years. These orders of the Collector (Agrarian) had, therefore, not acquired any immunity or finality under sub-section (5) of the said section. In this connection, reference could be made to a recent Single Bench decision of this Court in Kishan Singh V. State of Punjab and others, 1969 PunLJ 573. It may also be observed from these orders (Annexure 'A' to each petition) that it was not the case of any of these landowners during the surplus area proceedings in 1961-62 that there had been any partition of the joint family of any of these petitioners or that any transfers which were of a date prior to 21.8.1956 had been ignored for the purpose of declaration of the surplus area of any of these landowners.