SAHI RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been directed against the order Annexures P-2 and P-4, whereby some area belonging to the landowners has been declared surplus. The facts giving rise to the petition are that the surplus area case of petitioner No. 1 was determined by the Collector vide order dated 9th of November, 1976, copy Annexure P-1 to the petition. The total holding of the landowner was determined at 18.7496 hectares. After giving 7 hectares as permissible area of the landowner and an identical area as the permissible area of the adult son as also giving the benefit of some tenant's permissible area, land measuring 2.3624 hectares of first quality land was declared surplus. Aggrieved by the order of Annexure P.1, petitioner No. 1 filed an appeal before the Commissioner and pleaded that the tenant's permissible area had not been correctly determined and that one separate unit of 7 hectares for another son Lekh Ram, by name, who was an adult on the appointed day was also required to be given. Before the Commissioner, the petitioner allegedly produced a certificate issued by a Board of three doctors of Civil Hospital, Sri Ganganagar, in order to prove that Lekh Ram was an adult on the appointed day. The case was remanded by the Commissioner to the Collector for re-decision, but the Collector vide order dated 17th of June, 1983 Annexure P-2 to the petition had declared 1.96.38 hectares of first quality land as surplus. The petitioners thereafter again fled an appeal before the Commissioner and urged the same arguments that had been taken before him at the earlier stage. The Commissioner, however, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 31st of July, 1986, Annexure P-3 to the petition. The revision petition filed against the order Annexure P-3 was therafter dismissed by the financial Commissioner vide order dated 24th November, 1987, copy Annexure P-4 to the petition. As already mentioned above, annexures P-2 to P-4 have been impugned by way of this writ petition.

(2.) The challenge in the writ petition as also at the stage of arguments is that the authorities below did not take into account the various facts which went on to show that on the appointed day i.e. 24.1.71 Lekh Ram was an adult son of petitioner No. 1 and, as such was entitled to have his share of 7 hectares of first quality land as per the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act , 1972. It has also been urged that the tenant's permissible area which was required to be excluded before finalising the surplus area case of petitioner No. 1, had not been correctly determined as there were a number of tenants on the land and this aspect too had been noticed by the authorities below.

(3.) Replies have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 i.e. the Special Collector, Agrarian, Ferozepur District, and also by respondent No. 2, who is said to be an allottee of the land which had been declared surplus. It has been asserted by respondent No. 2 that 81 Kanals 5 Marlas of land out of the area declared surplus had been allotted to him and the remaining surplus area had been allotted to four other tenants. It has also been stated that he had been given actual physical possession of the part of the land and symbolic possession of the remainder. It has further been averred by both the respondents that Lekh Ram was a minor on the appointed day and this aspect too had been fully considered by the authorities below. It has also been urged that the tenant's permissible area had been correctly determined as there was only one tenant, namely, Net Ram in possession on the appointed day.