DERA BHAI KAPOOR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by Dera Bhai Kapoor Singh of village Thikriwala through Ram Pal Singh is directed against the orders dated 18th October, 1962 and 9th July, 1962 of the Commissioner Patiala Division, and Collector, Agrarian Reforms, Barnala, respectively.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Dera owned land measuring 142 bighas 3-3/4 units in village Thikriwala, district Sangrur, on 21st August, 1956. The petitioner did not file any return and make any reservation of land for personal cultivation within the prescribed time in accordance with either Section 5 or Section 32-B of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (Act No. 13 of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). After requisite information had been collected through the field staff, a draft statement under sub-section (2) of Section 32D of the Act was prepared and served upon the petitioner. The petitioner filed objections in the course of which it was stated that the petitioner wanted land for personal cultivation in three different blocks. The Collector refused to accede to this request and as per order dated 9th July, 1962 declared land measuring 112 standard acres 3-3/4 units surplus. On appeal the order of the Collector was affirmed on 18th October, 1962 by the Commissioner, Patiala Division.

(3.) Mr. Narula, on behalf of the petitioner, has argued that as sub-section(2) of Section 32-D, of the Act contemplates the filing of the objections by the landowner to the draft statement, the Collector and the Commissioner were in error in not accepting the preference of the permissible area expressed by the petitioner in the objections before the Collector. In my opinion the contention is devoid of force. The petitioner like the other landowners was but the petitioner admittedly failed to exercise that choice within the prescribed time. After the prescribed time, the petitioner could not by means of the objections filed in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 32-D, again exercise the choice. Preference no doubt was expressed by the petitioner in the objections, but the same was not accepted by the Collector, because according to that belated preference, the petitioner wanted the permissible area in three blocks. The Collector was well within his jurisdiction in not accepting the belated choice expressed by the petitioner and, as such, I see no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order in this petition.