ALBEL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Albel Singh aggrieved of order Annexure P- 1, dated July 17, 1980, vide which his father Inder Singh, even though no more alive by that time, was issued a notice directing him to hand over the possession of the land, which was declared surplus on September 11, 1959; and possession whereof was to be taken under section 9(2) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, has approached this Court for issuance of appropriate writ. Brief facts, as culled out from the pleadings of the parties, would reveal that surplus area case of Inder Singh was taken up for decision and vide order dated September 11, 1959, land measuring 28 Standard Acres and 7 Units in his hands was declared as surplus. The land, however, continued to be in possession of the landowner and after his demise with the petitioner, his mother Dhan Kaur and his brothers Bakhtaur Singh and Lal Singh. Even though it is the case of the petitioner that prior to 1960, the petitioner's brothers filed a declaratory suit in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Muktsar, wherein a decree was passed, according to which 18 Acres of land came to the share of the petitioner, yet even if that stand is not taken into account, the fact remains that after demise of Inder Singh, which was on June 30, 1971, the petitioner and others, referred to above, came to occupy the land. The undisputed fact that has come on record of the case is that at the time when Inder Singh died, the land so declrared surplus way back in 1959, was not utilized inasmuch as the same had not been allotted to eligible persons and obviously Inder Singh and thereafter his successors continued to be in possession. The sole ground so as to quash the order (Annexure P-1) is that if the landowner is not divested of his ownership before enforcement of the, Punjab land Reforms Act, then the landowner was entitled to select the permissible area of his family and for each of his adult sons and also that in any case if death of the landowner occurs and the land had not been utilized, the order declaring the land surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act cannot be enforced. For the aforesaid contention, reliance has been placed upon two decisions of. this Court. For the first proposition, reliance has been placed on Full Bench judgments of this Court in Ranjit Ram v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and others,1981 RevLR 566and for the second proposition, reliance has been placed upon Smt. Ajit Kaur and others v. The Punjab State,1980 RevLR 502.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I., find that there is merit in the contentions raised -by the learned counsel for the petitioner. If the land had not been utilized and the landowner dies, the surplus area has to be computed in hands of successors of the landowner. It is not the case of the State that land in the hands of the petitioner or other heirs of Inder Singh is also surplus. Be that as it may, the earlier order of the Collector cannot be given any effect and the authorities under the Punjab Land Reforms Act can at the most calculate the land of each of the successors of Inder Singh and if any, of them has land in excess of the permissible area under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, the same maybe declared as surplus. The possession in consequence of the order passed by the Collector on September 11, 1,959, cannot be taken and that being so, order Annexure P-1) vide which Inder Singh was asked to hand over possession of the land has to be quashed.

(3.) In view of what has been said above, this petition is allowed and the order (Annexure P-1) is quashed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.