BASANT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts giving rise to this writ petition, may be stated as under :-

(2.) Smt. Basant Kaur petitioner and respondents 6 to 9 are owners of land situate within the limits of village-Kapuri. Mara Singh was occupying a portion of that land as a tenant. Since he defaulted in payment of rent, the petitioner made an application under Section 7 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) for his eviction. An order of eviction of Mara Singh from the land comprised of his tenancy was passed on January 16, 1962, by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Patiala. Not only that Mara Singh failed to pay the arrears of rent. He made an application under Section 22 of the Act for acquiring the proprietary rights of the land occupied by him as tenant. The said application was rejected by the Assistant Collector First Grade on October 15, 1963. Mara Singh carried appeal, but the same was dismissed by the Collector, Patiala. He went in revision to the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh, and he accepted the said revision petition by his order dated August 7, 1964 (Annexure 'C' (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) and sent back the case to the Assistant Collector First Grade, Patiala, for assessing the compensation. Thereupon, Smt. Basant Kaur moved this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution for writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order, and for any order or direction, allowing her to select permissible area and fixing the same. The impugned order was challenged as illegal on the ground that the tenancy of Mara Singh had terminated since an order of eviction had been passed against him. It was further alleged that Sections 5(2)(b) and 32-B of the Act were unconstitutional, null and void.

(3.) Mara Singh contested the writ petition. It was pleaded by him that the petitioner, owned land more than permissible limit, that she had not been in its possession, and that the impugned order was valid and correct since his tenancy was subsisting on the date when he made application under Section 22 of the Act. It was maintained that Section 5(2)(b) and Section 32-b of the Act were constitutionally valid. Mara Singh died during the pendency of the writ petition and his sons-Balkar Singh and Sardar Singh were substituted in his place.