SANTOKH SINGH Vs. THE PUNJAB STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 25th October 1961 of the Pepsu Land Commission holding that the Petitioner was not entitled to exemption of any land for his diary -farm.

(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations of the Petitioner, he was a displaced person and was given about 3000 bighas of agricultural land in village Munshiwala, district Sangrur, by way of gentry grant by His Highness, the Maharaja of Patiala of the erstwhile Patiala State, in 1948. Later on, it was discovered that this land was evacuee property and, consequently, allotment could only be made by the Rehabilitation Department. Accordingly, the said Department allotted 97 -13 Standard Acres to the Petitioner in 1950. Out of this area, about 55 bighas were under an old orchard and were allotted to him as such. In 1948 the land was in a very neglected and undeveloped state and the Petitioner, after spending a good deal of expense and labour and using his expert knowledge of agriculture and dairy farming, considerably improved the same Being particularly interested in the cattle breeding and dairy -farm, he earmarked about 33 Standard Acres of this land for a dairy -farm and the same was being used for this very purpose ever since 1948. He duly furnished to the Collector the particulars of his land for reservation and exemption from ceiling under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The exemption was claimed for an orchard, dairy -farm, cattle -farm and sheep -farm. The Collector referred the case to the Pepsu Land Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) constituted under Section 32 -P of the Act for its opinion regarding the exemption claimed by the Petitioner. By the impugned order, the Commission gave its opinion that the Petitioner was not entitled to exemption of any land for a dairy -farm, because in its opinion the dairy -farm did not come into existence before the Act came into force and the requirements of a dairy as contained in the Rule 30(ii) of the Rules framed under the Act were not being fulfilled. The Commission, however, held that the Petitioner was entitled to exemption for an area measuring 53 bighas and 17 biswas in which there was an orchard at the time when the Act came into force. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the validity of this order.

(3.) AS regards the first ground the relevant provisions of the Act under which exemption is being claimed are in the following terms: -