PRITHVI RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present judgment, I propose to dispose of CWP Nos. 9088, 9090, 10452, 11414 and 10483 of 1991. The facts have been taken from CWP No. 10483 of 1991.

(2.) The petitioner, along with his real brothers, is owner of land jointly held by them in various villages of Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur. As the petitioner was a big landowner, proceedings for declaration of his surplus area were initiated by the Special Collector, Agrarian, Fazilka, in the year 1960-61. The Special Collector vide his orders dated 20th March, 1961, declared some area of the petitioner surplus under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Reforms Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the 'old Act'). The declaration of surplus area was thereafter reviewed by the Collector after securing permission from the Commissioner and an order was passed on 17th November, 1970 once again declaring the same area as surplus. Dissatisfied with the order aforementioned the petitioner approached the Commissioner by way of an appeal and the same was accepted vide orders dated 16th December, 1974 and 25th March, 1975 and the matter remanded to the Collector for redecision. While the matter was pending before the Collector the petitioner moved an application praying that before deciding his surplus area case his holding be separated from the joint holding of his brothers as provided by Section 24-A(1) of the old Act. The Collector dismissed the application vide order dated 20th June, 1980, stating that it was not necessary to separate the area under Section 24-A(1) of the old Act or under Section 13(1) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter called 'the Act') before the determining the surplus area. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector, the petitioner once again filed an appeal before the Commissioner and the same was accepted on 19th January, 1981, and the case remanded to the Collector with a direction to him to separate the joint holding before declaring any area surplus. It was been averred by the petitioner that even or remand and despite the specific directions, the Collector again did not decide the application under Section 24-A(1) of the old Act and ordered the petitioner to file a selection of the area which he wished to maintain as his own. Dissatisfied with the order of the Collector, the petitioner again filed an appeal before the Commissioner which was again accepted vide order dated 15th April, 1982 and the case was sent back to the Collector with the specific direction to separate the joint khata of the petitioner so as to determine as to which Khasra number would be retained by each individual owner. It appears that the Collector did not comply with the directions of the Commissioner and once again affirmed his order dated 1st June, 1972, vide order dated 28th September, 1984 appended as Annexure P.1 to the petition. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, who dismissed the same vide his order 27th May, 1985, a copy whereof has been appended as Annexure P-2 to the petition. The revision filed by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner has also been dismissed vide order dated 13th November, 1990.

(3.) The stand taken by the petitioner in the writ petition is that the Collector had not complied with the orders of the Commissioner repeatedly given directing him to separate the joint holding of the petitioner before declaring the surplus area and, as such the order passed inter se between the parties ought to have been complied with by the subordinate officer. It has also been urged that on coming into force of the Act, the case of the petitioner for determination of surplus area was to be considered under the provisions of this Act. The respondent's stand on a reading of the impugned orders as also of the written statement is that as per the provisions of Section 24-A(1) of the old Act which corresponds to Section 13(1) of the Act it was not necessary separation could be done even thereafter. It has also been argued that by virtue of Section 28 of the Act, the proceedings for determination of the surplus area which were pending at the time of coming into force of the Act, were to be completed under the provisions of the Act.