MOTI RAM Vs. THE COLLECTOR AGRARIAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DO the words "adult son" occurring in Section 5 of The Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) include the Chela of a Mahant, so as to entitle such Chela to select separate permissible area as an adult son is entitled to in terms thereof? This is the short controversy raised in this writ petition.

(2.) MOTI Ram Petitioner held agricultural land in excess of the permissible area as defined in the Act. He claimed that he had a Chela Harka Das who was an adult and consequently Harka Das too was entitled to select separate permissible area under the Act. This contention was repelled by the Collector Agrarian when it WAS raised before him but no appeal being filed against his order, it does not appear to have been pressed as no mention is contained of any such plea in the impugned order of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala of March 11, 1976 (Annexure P - -2). It was the contention of Mr. Bhandari, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the Chela of a Mahant was also entitled to separate permissible area and for this proposition his reliance was upon the observation made by the Supreme Court in Sital Das v. Sant Ram : AIR 1954 S.C. 606 where it was stated.

(3.) THE impugned order thus warrants no interference in writ proceedings and this writ petition is accordingly hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs.