SUDARSHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is to order dated 9.3.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 4881 of 1982 vide which, writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the appellants, who were petitioners therein, was dismissed. The appellants (hereinafter referred to as petitioners) had challenged order dated 14.9.1982, Annexure P-8, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab and notice dated 5.11.1982, Annexure P-9, passed by respondent No. 3, Collector, Agrarian and sought a further writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 3 to re-process the surplus area case of late Smt. Devki in the hands of her heirs.

(2.) THE facts, on which there is hardly any dispute, reveal that an area measuring 21 standard acres 14-3/4 units in the hands of Devki widow of Mansukhrai was declared surplus on 27.6.1960 under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. Prior to this, Devki had already sold some part of the surplus area on 17.3.1958 to some other persons, including Sudesh Kumar, who challenged order dated 27.6.1960 by way of appeal which was allowed vide order dated 1.9.1961 and the matter was remitted to the Collector, Agrarian who re-processed the surplus area case of Devki once over again and still assessed 21 standard acres 14-3/4 units as surplus area.

(3.) DURING the course of arguments, it remained undisputed that if the land, declared surplus, till the year 1973 when the Act of 1972 came into being, may not have been utilised either before the Provisions of Act came into being or till such time Devki died, the authorities constituted under the Act had no option but for to re-assess the surplus area in the hands of legal heirs of Devki. Reference in this connection be made to Full judgment of this Court in Ranjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab, 1986 R.R.R. 408 : 1981 PLJ 259, which has since been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ujjagar Singh (dead) by LRs. v. The Collector, Bathinda and another, 1996(3) RCR(Civil) 446 (SC) : 1996 PLJ 505. Thus, the judgments of the Full Bench and Hon'ble Supreme Court cover the situation when the Act of 1972 came into force and the land was not utilised. The other proposition as settled, as mentioned above, is that when death of a land owner occurs and the land has been utilised, it has to be reassessed in the hands of legal heirs. It has been so held by the Full Bench of this court in Ajit Kumar v. State of Punjab and others, 1980 PLJ 354.