AMAR SINGH SHIAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in which the facts may be shortly stated.

(2.) The erstwhile State of Pepsu enacted an Act called the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, (hereinafter called the Act) which has from time to time been amended and it now extends only to the areas formerly comprising the State of Pepsu. The said Act inter alia fixed a ceiling of 40 standard acres in the case of allottees of land, i.e., displaced persons from Pakistan and 30 standard acres in the case of other persons and also empowers the State Government to acquire such land of the land-owners as is in excess of the said ceiling. In the petition it is claimed that the petitioner is the karta of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself and his four sons and as such is the owner of 48.96 standard acres of land in village Bishanpura in the district of Patiala. According to him the land held by each member of the family does not exceed the permissible limit prescribed by the Statute and the provisions relating to the ceiling on holding of land could not apply to his case. The other matter raised is that out of the said land 55 bighas and 1 Biswa of land comprising certain khasra numbers is under an Orchard. The petitioner claimed an exemption for this area and the proceedings were taken in connection therewith before the Pepsu Land Commission, respondent No. 2. The petitioner's case was fixed for production of evidence on the 16th May 1960 but as he fell ill, he was prevented from appearing and adducing his evidence before the Commission on that date. The petitioner informed his counsel about his inability and asked for an adjournment but the Commission declined to give any further opportunity and disposed of the petitioner's case solely on the report of the Naib Tehsildar Agrarian Reforms dated the 13th March 1960 who had expressed his opinion that the Orchard appeared to have been planted 1 1/2 years earlier. For these reasons the Commission refused to grant any exemption on the ground that the Orchard had not been planted within the statutory period. On the 25th May 1960 the petitioner applied to the Commission to review its earlier decision but the review application was also dismissed with the observation that illness was not a sufficient cause for adjourning the case. Another matter agitated in the petition was that certain transfers had been effected by the petitioner in the years 1956 and 1957 and as these transfers were of small land owners, the holding of the petitioner did not exceed the permissible limit. The constitutionality of the Act has also been assailed on various grounds.

(3.) In the written statement which has been filed on behalf of the respondents, it is denied for want of knowledge that the petitioner is the karta of a joint Hindu family. It is mentioned that on the date of enforcement of the Act, i.e., the 21st August 1956 the entries in the revenue record showed that the petitioner was the land owner of the entire land. Moreover he had made a statement before the Naib Tahsildar (Agrarian) that the entire land was under his personal cultivation on 21st August 1956. According to section 32-B of the Act it is stated that the petitioner is entitled to retain only 30 standard acres of land for his personal cultivation because he is not a displaced person. As regards all the other allegations, they were controverted.