AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I take the view that this writ petition is covered in favour of the Petitioner by the ratio in the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Harpal Singh v. The State of Punjab and another, 1970 PunLJ 159. It is, therefore, suffice to refer to the facts relevant to this legal issue.

(2.) Amar Singh petitioner held land in two villages, namely, Golehwala and Chak Kala Tola in the district of Bhatinda. On the 11th of January, 1958, he sold 29.95 S. As of land in village Golehwala to strangers who admittedly are not relations as prescribed under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. This sale was thus protected by the provisions of Section 32-FF of the said statute. Subsequently, however, the sons of the petitioner filed a pre-emption suit which was decreed in their favour on the 4th October, 1958. In the surplus area proceeding that followed, the Collector by his order of the 10th of July, 1961, excluded the area in the sale above-mentioned from the holdings of the petitioner and consequently declared a small area of 0.32 S. A as surplus in his hand.

(3.) Subsequently, a decision of this Court was rendered in Jai Lal and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 1963 PunLJ 51, holding that the effect of a pre-emption decree in the above-said circumstances would result in the sale being deemed to have been made to the sons after the decree and the protection of Section 32-FF would not be applicable. Relying on the above-said view of the law, the Collector Agrarian Reforms sought the leave of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, to review the earlier declaration of the surplus area of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 granted the requisite leave to review the same. In the subsequent proceedings that followed, the Collector by his order dated the 2nd of September, 1965, included the sold area in village Golehwala within the land of the petitioner and declared 23.90 S. As of land as surplus vide annexure 'A'. Express reliance was placed therein on Jai Lal's case for taking a view contrary to the order of the Collector earlier on the 10th of July, 1961. An appeal was carried to the Commissioner, Patiala Division, who also placed reliance on Jai Lal's case in the following terms :-