BHAGWAN KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT. Bhagwan Kaur, widow of Balchtawar Singh, petitioner has moved this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the respective orders passed by respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Punjab and respondents NOS. 5 to 15 are the tenants of the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner owns land measuring 94 standard acres out of which land measuring 410 bigbas is under possession of respondents Nos. 5 to 15 who are cultivating the land as tenants-at-will under the petitioner. The land is situated in tahsil Nabha to which the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, is applicable. To the lands situated in the territory of Punjab before merger, the law applicable is governed by the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. No part of this land was at any material time under personal cultivation of the petitioner. In this case, the permissible limit as defined in Section 3 would be 30 standard acres or 80 ordinary acres. Section 5 of the Pepsu Act provides that where a landowner owns land exceeding 30 standard acres, he shall be entitled to select for personal cultivation from land held by him in the State as a landowner any parcel or parcels of land not exceeding in aggregate area the permissible limit. He may reserve such land for "personal cultivation by intimating his selection in the prescribed form and manner to the Collector. This rights ceases if it is not exercised by a person in the condition of the petitioner within a period of six months from the commencement of the President's Act. In this case the petitioner did not exercise any such right and did not give any indication to the Collector of? her wish to reserve the land. No land was reserved by her and no parcel was under her personal cultivation.

(3.) THE tenants made an application to the prescribed authority (Tahsildar Nabha)under Section 22 of the Pepsu Act for the acquisition of proprietary rights. The prescribed authority, after notice to the petitioner, allowed-the tenants' application on 31st May, 1960. As the application was by different sets of tenants, four orders were passed which are similarly worded. Copies of these orders have been placed on the record as annexures A, B, C and D. The petitioner took the matter up in appeal to the Collector, but she was unsuccessful (vide annexures E, f, G and H ). Then the matter was taken up in revision to the financial commissioner where she was also not successful (vide annexure 1 ). Before the financial Commissioner, reliance was also placed upon the provisions of Section 32-A and 32-B of the Pepsu Act.