SAGINDER PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1931 and 2512 of 1980, the facts being taken from the latter case.

(2.) The land of Gurcharan Singh, respondent No. 5, was first declared surplus on 25th September, 1961, by the Collector, Agrarian, Patiala. The landowner aggrieved by the order moved the Commissioner, Patiala, in appeal, who vide order dated 11th June, 1975, allowed the same and remanded the case to the Collector for fresh decision. It has been averred in the petition that petitioner No. 1 was already an owner of a part of land originally held by Gurcharan Singh even prior to 1956, whereas petitioner No. 2 purchased some of the land in dispute on 12h April, 1972. It is the conceded case of the parties that in the jamabandi for the year 1972-73, the name of the petitioners appeared in the revenue record in the column of ownership. On remand from the Commissioner, the matter was taken up by the Collector once again, who vide order dated 22nd March, 1976, Annexure P-2 to the petition, declared some area in the hands of the petitioners as surplus. It has been averred in the petition that the petitioners came to know of the aforesaid order for the first time on 20th December, 1976, as they had no notice of knowledge of the surplus area proceedings that had culminated in the order Annexure P-2 and thereafter filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala. The Commissioner, however, dismissed the appeal on 21st March, 1980 vide Annexure P-3.

(3.) The only argument taken up by the petitioners in the writ petition is that no notice had been served on them prior to the order declaring the area surplus, the orders Annexures P-2 and P-3 which have been impugned were void. The stand taken by the respondents in the written statement is that no notice was required to be served on the petitioners, as at the time of commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 the petitioners were not the owners of the land in dispute. The stand taken by the respondents is obviously untenable. It is the admitted case that when the Collector made the order Annexure P-2 on 22nd March, 1976, the petitioners had been reflected as owners in the jamabandi, Annexure P-1, for the year 1972-73, and, as such, were entitled to a notice before the area could be declared surplus.