AMARJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of two writ petitions 1279 and 1519 of 1993 in which similar questions of law and fact arise. Counsel for the parties are agreed that the decision in civil writ petition 1519 of 1993 will govern the other writ petition as well. Since the arguments were addressed in civil writ petition 1519 of 1993, the facts are being taken from this case.

(2.) PREM Inder Singh was a big landowner. He filed a declaration in Form-A under Rule 5 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1973 before the Collector (Agrarian), Samana. As per this declaration he and his family owned and held 551 kanals-5 marlas and 5 acres of land in villages Tambuwala and Additiwala respectively in District Patiala. The Collector after making the necessary verifications through the field staff and taking note of the various transfers made by landowner through sale mortgage and gifts clubbed the land held by all the family members and came to the conclusion that the landowner along with his family members owned and held 10.61 Hectares of first quality land in the two villages on the appointed day i.e. 24.1.1971. Since he was entitled to retain 7 Hectares as his permissible area according to the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (for short the Act), the Collector by his order dated 18.6.1976 declared 3.61 Hectares of first quality land as surplus in his hands. The details of khasra numbers so declared surplus were given in the order. The landowner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division which was allowed on 18.12.1978 and the case was remanded to the Collector with the following observations :

(3.) IT was strenuously urged by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Collector and the Commissioner were in error in clubbing the land owned by members of the family and that the wife and the daughter of the landowner were entitled to a separate permissible area. He also urged that wife was a landowner within the meaning of this term and, therefore, she ought to have been heard during the surplus area proceedings. The argument is that the Commissioner, Patiala Division while remanding the case on 18.12.1978 had specifically given a direction that wife of the landowner be afforded an opportunity of hearing and since that was not done the impugned order stands vitiated. I am unable to accept these contentions. By my order passed today in Smt. Paramjit Kaur v. State of Haryana and another Civil Writ Petition 2293 of 1981, I have held that land of all family members has to be clubbed for the purpose of declaring the surplus area in the hands of the landowner and that the wife has no right to be heard in the surplus area proceedings. In this view of the matter, the Commissioner, Patiala Division was not justified in issuing directions to the Collector to afford an opportunity of hearing to the wife. I have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the contention of the learned senior counsel.