SEKENDAR SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ajmer Singh, father of the petitioner before me (Sakendar Singh minor through his mother as guardian), had applied to the Prescribed Authority under the Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme, 1960 (hereinafter called the Scheme) framed under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act). This application had been made on the ground that Ajmer Singh was a worker as defined in paragraph 2(h) of the Scheme. Before this application could be disposed of Ajmer Singh died and the present petitioner applied for allotment of the land in place of his father. The Prescribed Authority disallowed Sakendar Singh's prayer, holding that Ajmer Singh's application on the ground of his being a worker must fail with his death because the right as a worker could not be inherited by his son. The petitioner, who was a minor, according to the learned Financial Commissioner, had not cultivated the land and his cultivation had not been recorded in the Khasra Girdawari either. For this reason, the minor son could not claim to be a worker within the statutory definition. It is this order which is being assailed in the present proceedings and it has been argued that if Ajmer Singh's right as a worker had matured, then merely because before the actual disposal of his application he happened to die, and his son was also a worker, then the latter should, according to the recognised principles of law, be entitled to utilise, as a result of inheritance, his father's right based on his cultivation for two years prior to the commencement of the Act, and that the learned Financial Commissioner has taken a somewhat superficial view of the statutory provisions.

(2.) On behalf of the respondents, it has not been denied that if Ajmer Singh had acquired a right to allotment as a worker, then merely his death before the final disposal of the application could not prejudice his son if he too was a worker, and that the son could in those circumstances tag on to his own period of cultivation that of his deceased father. As to whether the present petitioner has actually been cultivating the land from after the death of his father is the question to which the authorities have not directed their attention. This, according to both the counsel at the bar, who are agreed on the course to be adopted by this Court, requires further investigation by the departmental authorities. That this course can in law be adopted is clear from T. Prem Sagar v. M/s Standard Vaccum Oil Company, 1965 AIR(SC) 111 at p. 118.

(3.) For the foregoing reasons, I quash the impugned order and send the case back to the Prescribed Authority for proper disposal of the application in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. There would be no order as to costs in these proceedings.