MAHANT SEWA PURI Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 46.59 standard acres of land, situated in village Jalbehra, Tehsil Mansa, District Bhatinda, was owned by Smadh Kashi Puri beihtmam Sewa Puri chela Magni Puri. The land being more than the maximum allowed by the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, proceedings were taken by the authorities, in the absence of any return under Section 32-B and on the proposal of the Naib Tehsildar (Agrarian), accepted by the Collector, a draft statement No. 8 was issued on 26th of May, 1960, declaring 16.59 standard acres as surplus, as detailed in the form. This form was duly served on Sewa Puri, the Mahant of the Smadh, and he was duly served on 6th of June, 1960. He did not put in any objection or otherwise approach the authorities raising any protest, and a formal order of declaration of the area as surplus was passed by the Collector on 24th of October, 1960. Even thereafter he did not take any steps at all. His possession was sought to be disturbed in view of this declaration when he approached this Court by the present writ, alleging that the Smadh was a charitable institution and the area was owned by the Smadh and was in his (Sewa Puri's) possession only as a manager and not in his personal capacity and that the Collector having failed to give any finding that the institution did not fall within Section 51, which provided that the provisions of the Act were not to apply, inter alia to lands belonging to any religious or charitable institutions, the order of the Collector was illegal. The return filed by the State raises mainly two objections, first, that the Mahant not only did not file a return but failed to appear and raise objection after the service of form No. 8, and the order of the Collector having been passed as far back as 1960, the Mahant approached this Court after good deal of laches, and secondly, that, in any case, under Section 51, before an institution could claim exemption from the provisions of the Act, a notification of the State Government has to be made in respect of the institution.

(2.) The relevant portion of Section 51 is as follows :-

(3.) On going through the record of the case produced before me, I find that there is a statement of Sewa Puri dated 17th of June, 1959, i.e., nearly a year before the recommendation by the Naib Tehsildar was made nearly 16 months before the impugned order by the Collector was passed. In this, it is clearly stated by him as under :-