RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the orders made under Section 32-D of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act by the authorities under the Act declaring 29 standard acres and 13-1/2 units of land as surplus area in the hands of petitioner Ranjit Singh.

(2.) It appears that on the report of Patwari and Naib-Tehsildar (Agrarian), the Collector Agrarian, Sangrur, issued a draft statement under Section 32-D of the said Act showing that 29 standard acres and 13-1/2 units of land situated in village, Hameergarh were surplus area in the hands of the petitioner and invited objections of the petitioner thereto. Petitioner No. 1 on the 12th of October, 1960, made his objection claiming that the whole of the land approximately about 547 bighas had originally belonged to petitioners No. 1, 2, 3, and 4, who were members of a joint Hindu family and that vide report No. 603 in the Daily Diary of the Patwari dated the 31st August, 1954, Ranjit Singh petitioner No. 1, the father, had of his own free will, partitioned the joint Hindu family and agricultural land belonging to it. He further claimed that as no mutation was entered in the revenue papers on the basis of this report, another report was made by him on the 16th of September, 1956, on the basis of which mutation No. 1267 was sanctioned by the revenue authorities on the 12th of October, 1956.

(3.) On the basis of these objections, the Special Collector II, Punjab, Chandigarh, apparently sent for the Patwari with his original records and having examined him came to the conclusion that report No. 603 regarding transfer of the land to the sons was undoubtedly made to the Patwari on the 31st of August, 1954, but no mutation was entered on the basis of this report and that the subsequent mutation which was attested on the 12th of October, 1956, was based on a subsequent report to the Patwari, dated the 16th of September, 1956. The Special Collector came to the conclusion that the transfer, in fact, took place after the 21st of August, 1956, and was, therefore, hit by Section 32-FF of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1956. He, therefore, declined to modify the draft statement.