GHAMANDI LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is necessary to refer only to the point which necessitates a remand in this petition at the instance of Ghamandi Ram and his sons under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Ghamandi Ram claims to be in possession of 63 standard acres 12-1/4 units of land in village Behak Khas in Tehsil Fazilka, along with his sons and grandsons who are petitioners 2 to 5 and respondents 5 and 6. For the determination of surplus area, a notice was issued for the petitioner alone and this was not even served on him when the Collector started proceedings which culminated in the declaration which is sought to be impugned that 13 standard acres and 12-1/4 units should be declared surplus The petitioner claims that he and his other sons constituted a joint Hindu family and each of them should be considered a separate unit in computation of surplus area. This point is against the authority of a Division of this Court and it is submitted by Mr. Dhingra, the learned counsel that the question requires re-determination in view of a recent decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court. This matter need not be gone into as I am of the view that the petitioner had not been properly served.

(3.) The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956, prescribes under Rule 6 for matters relating to assessment of surplus areas with landowners and tenants. Under Clause (3), the Circle Revenue Officer is enjoined to make such enquiry as he thinks fit "after giving the persons concerned an opportunity of being heard before forwarding his report to the Collector." Again, under sub-clause (6), the Collector is required to give a landlord or a tenant an opportunity of being heard after such enquiry as he thinks fit before assessing the surplus area. No notice was ever served on the petitioner or his sons and on that account the proceedings before the revenue authorities suffer from a fatal infirmity. Consequently, this petition must be allowed and the order of the revenue authorities quashed. The assessment of surplus area should be redetermined after giving a proper opportunity to the petitioners of being heard. I do not think that the defect has been remedied in any way by the notice which was sent to the petitioner when his appeal was heard by the Additional Commissioner. The petitioner in the initial stages had no opportunity of putting forth his point of view. I would make no order as to costs of this petition.