INDRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though other points have been taken up in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the only one which is now urged before me by Mr. Dalip Singh relates to the absence of notice on the three minor petitioners, Indraj Singh, Mohinder Singh and Ude Bir Singh. It is the case of these petitioners that they acquired certain properties by pre-emption decrees in respect of sales made by their parents in favour of the vendees. The surplus area has been declared without any regard to these pre-emption decrees and without any notice to the petitioners who stood in the shoes of the vendors. It may be that there is no merit left in the case of the petitioners under the amended provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, but the provision of notice is imperative and the petitioners not having received notice are entitled to receive it and to be heard before the order for declaration of surplus area is passed. In the reply filed on behalf of the State, it is said that Amrao Singh, the father of the petitioners was present. This is hardly a sufficient compliance with the requirement of the law as Amrao Singh had actually transferred the land and the petitioners have been substituted in the pre-emption decree in place of their father and mother who had sold the land.

(2.) I feel constrained, therefore, to allow this petition and remand this case for re-determination after proper notice has been sent to the petitioners. There would be no order as to costs. Case remanded.