LAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bela Singh petitioner No. 2 was owner of 100 Bigas of land in village Koharianwali. He claimed to have made certain transfers of parts of his holding in favour of his son Lal Singh petitioner No. 1 during the years 1953 to 1958. Entries about these transfers had been incorporated in the revenue records and the transfers were even mentioned by the Patwari in the prescribed statement, prepared by him, for the purpose of determination of the landowner's surplus area.

(2.) The respondents, State of Punjab and its officers in the Revenue Department, started the surplus area proceedings against the petitioners in the year 1960-61. The Collector's order (Annexure A) dated the 18th August, 1961 shows that Lal Singh besides another transferee, was made a respondent alongwith the landowner Bela Singh. The order records that the transferees had been heard by the Circle Revenue Officer and had taken up the position that the area transferred in their favour may not be taken into the surplus pool. The transfers in favour of petitioner No. 1 were, however, ignored in view of the provisions of Section 10-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The landowner Shri Bela Singh was allowed to retain thirty standard acres as his permissible area, but the remaining area of 49 standard acres and 81 units including the area sold, was declared as surplus under Section 5-B(2) of the Act. Lal Singh filed an appeal alleging that he and his brothers, who were the transferees of the land, had never been served with any notice of the surplus area proceedings or given an opportunity of being heard and that the order of the Collector including the land acquired by them in the surplus area of the landowner, was bad in law. The appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, respondent No. 3, by his order dated the 2nd February, 1965 (Annexure B) and a revision petition filed before the Financial Commissioner, respondent No. 2, met with no better fate. One of the grounds for dismissing Lal Singh's appeal and revision was that these had been filed after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation.

(3.) Lal Singh and his father have now called in question the surplus area proceedings taken against them by the respondents in a civil writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The main ground urged by Shri Dhingra, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that Lal Singh transferee had no notice of the surplus area proceedings and that the order to his prejudice had been passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard. This was described to be against the principles of natural justice.