RAM SARAN DAS Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Saran Dass and others have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the orders of the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, dated June 18, 1965, October 11, 1966, and April 23, 1968 (copies Annexures 'A', 'B' and 'C' to the petition) respectively.

(2.) Although various grounds have been taken in the petition before me the correctness and legality of the impugned orders have been challenged by Mr. S. S. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioners only on this ground that the land could not be deemed to have been utilized within the meaning and scope of Sections 10-A and 10-B of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, till the resettled tenant takes actual possession over it. In substance, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that Gaja Dhari, the original landowner, died on May 9, 1964, that by that time the land had not been utilized and that the petitioners having become small landowners after his death, the land could not legally be utilized for the resettlement of the tenants. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision to which I was a party in Financial Commissioner Haryana and others v. Shrimati Kela Devi and another, 1969 PunLJ 307, wherein it has been observed thus :-

(3.) In view of the Division Bench decision of this Court, referred to above, Mr. H.L. Sarin, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 and O.P. Hoshiarpuri, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, do not controvert the contentions raised by S.S. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioners and concede that the area would not be deemed to have been utilized as the tenant did not take possession during the life time of the landowner. However, it is contended by Mr. H.L. Sarin, learned counsel, that the matter will have to go back to the Collector for determining whether each of the petitioners is a small landowner after the death of the original landowner. This contention of the learned counsel is not contested by Mr. S.S. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioners. In this view of the matter, I set aside the impugned orders of the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, dated June 18, 1965, October 11, 1966 and April 23, 1968 (copies Annexures 'A', 'B' and 'C' to the petition) respectively, and send back the case to the Collector for determination of the question whether each of the petitioners is a small landowner or not. In case, he comes to the conclusion that each of the petitioners is a small landowner, then as conceded by Mr. H.L. Sarin, learned counsel, respondent No. 2, would not be entitled to be resettled, on any part of the area which was declared surplus on October 3, 1960, in the hands of Gaja Dhari. In case the Collector comes to the conclusion that each of the petitioners or any one of them is a big landowner, then he would resettle respondent No. 2 on the area which is declared surplus in their hands. The parties through their learned counsel have been directed to appear before the Collector, Surplus, Gurdaspur, on December 23, 1971. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. Petition accepted.