MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only contention advanced in this petition is that before the surplus area was declared by the Collector no opportunity was afforded to the landholders. The other question raised in the petition, namely, regarding joint Hindu family being treated as one unit for the purpose of surplus area has been settled by a Division Bench of this Court in Bhagat Gobind Singh v. Punjab State, 1963 65 PunLR 105.

(2.) So far as the first objection is concerned, it is necessary to state the facts: A notice was issued to the landholders by Tehsildar for appearance before him. Inspite of the notice, the landholders did not appear before the Tahsildar. The Tehsildar forwarded his report to the Collector on the 23rd April, 1959, and on the 24th April, 1959, the Collector passed the final order declaring the area surplus. According to rule 6, sub-rule (3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956, no order can be passed by the Collector without hearing the landholder. No notice was issued by the Collector to the landholders before declaring as to how much land held by the petitioners was surplus. I have examined the file and that bears out what I have stated above. There is one report dated the 6th February, 1960, with regard to form 'F' in which it is stated that a notice was pasted on the outer door of the landholders' house. This procedure is also against the express provisions of the statute, that is, Section 90 of the Punjab Tenancy Act read with rule 6(7), of Rules framed under the Act. There is nothing on the file to show that the Collector issued a notice before he passed the final order on the 24th April, 1959, and in fact he could not because he received the file on the 24th April, 1959. In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is referred back to the Collector to decide the same in accordance with law. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.