RAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Chand and his minor son Harphool are the petitioners in Civil Writ No. 586 of 1963 and Chandan and his minor son Kaka are the petitioners in Civil Writ No. 587 of 1963. Ram Chand and Chandan are recorded as owners of agricultural land in village Kharal, Tehsil Narwana, District Sangrur, and the main grievance is against the orders of the Collector, Agrarian Reforms, Sangrur (respondent No. 2 to the petition) dated the 13th December, 1960 (Copy Annexure 'A' to the petition) whereby some of their lands 6 standard acres and 3-1/2 units of the former's land and 7 standard acres and 2 units of the latter's land have been declared as surplus area with the landowner under the provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). Since the material facts in both the writ petitions are the same, it will be convenient to dispose of both of them in the course of the following judgment.

(2.) It is contended by each of the petitioners that the minor son of the petitioner in each case forms a joint Hindu family (coparcenary), which is the real owner of the land, and further that notice of the proceedings regarding declaration of surplus area was not given to either of the petitioners in the two cases. Petitioner No. 1 in each case is supposed to have come to know of the order of respondent No. 2 in the second week of February, 1963, and soon thereafter review petitions were put in before respondent No. 2 which were, however, summarily dismissed by him. Subsequently, petitioner No. 1 in each case was directed to appear before the Collector, Sangrur, on the 25th March, 1963, and to get a certain amount of compensation for the land declared as surplus. It is contended that the Pepsu Land Commission, which under Section 32-P of the Act is empowered to determine the "fair rent" on the basis of which the Collector is to assess the compensation, did not issue any notice to the petitioner before the determination of the fair rent nor to the knowledge of the petitioner was any enquiry made by the Commission on this point. Then it is contended that respondent No. 2 should not have rejected the review petitions summarily but should have made an enquiry on the point as to whether a notice of the proceedings regarding declaration of surplus area was served on each of the petitioners or not. It is further objected, that after the declaration of surplus area holdings in the village of the petitioners have been consolidated and as a result of repartition the land allotted to the petitioner is much less in terms of standard acres than the land owned by him before the consolidation and the proceedings regarding deduction of surplus area have to be restarted afresh.

(3.) The validity of Section 32-KK of the Act as inserted by Punjab Act No. 16 of 1962, was also challenged so far as it purports to divest the ownership of the members of the joint Hindu family in the land retrospectively. The last point was, however, given up by the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the Bench ruling of this Court in Bhagat Gobind Singh V. Punjab State and others, 1963 65 PunLR 105.