SAMPURAN SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR KURUKSHETRA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy sought to be raised here relates to land which originally belonged to Ram Sarup respondent No. 2. In 1951, the land being 'Banjar, it came to be acquired under the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was then given on a seven years lease with one-half share therein each to one Bhagat Ram and Devitia the father of respondent No. 2. This happened in 1952. Sometime later Isher Singh and Pritam Singh the predecessors of some of the present petitioners were allowed to join Bhagat Ram as co-lessees. According to the petitioners, however, Dalip Singh the predecessor of some of the other petitioners had also been so permitted to join as co-lessee, but this has not been admitted in the return filed on behalf of the Collector. At any rate this is not an aspect which has any material bearing on the merits of the questions raised.

(2.) The period of the lease was subsequently extended from seven to twenty years. The period of the lease was thus to expire in 1972.

(3.) Ram Sarup, respondent No. 2, was a big landowner and by virtue thereof proceedings were initiated against him relating to the determination of his surplus area under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Land Tenures Act'). The Collector Agrarian by his order of July 8, 1960 declared 33.2 acres of land held by him to be surplus. On review the Special Collector, Chandigarh by his order of December 6, 1961 ordered that the area acquired under the Act be not taken into account until after the expiry of the period of lease. The revision petition filed against this order was dismissed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, by his order of February 10, 1962. It was thereafter, that the Collector Agrarian, Kaithal by his order of April 3, 1963 declared 3.55 standard acres equal to 17 ordinary acres as surplus. Included in the land so declared surplus was some of the land which was held by the petitioners as lessees under the Act.