SADHU RAM Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only two contentions raised by the learned counsel in this writ petition are - (1) that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to select the permissible area of his choice and (2) that banjar qadim and ghair mumkin lands in his possession on 15-4-1953 should not have been taken into consideration for determining his surplus area.

(2.) So far as the first contention is concerned, the position of the State is that the petitioner appeared before the Collector on 20-9-1962 in compliance with the notice issued to him in this respect. He was then asked to file the list of Khasra numbers, which he desired to reserve for his self-cultivation, on 28-9-1962. He, however, did not appear before the Collector on that date and, consequently, the Collector presumed that he did not want any change in the area already given to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner bona fide did not appear on 28-9-1962, because the proceedings regarding the re-settlement of the tenants on the surplus area had been stayed by this Court in a writ petition filed by his sons challenging the order of the Revenue Authorities declaring the surplus area. Learned counsel for the State has no serious objection to the petitioner being granted an opportunity to appear before the Collector and submit a list of the Khasra numbers, which he wishes to be included in his permissible area.

(3.) As regards the second contention, learned counsel for the State agrees that the land which was banjar qadim or ghair mumkin on the relevant date, that is, 15-4-1953, cannot in view be taken into consideration for determining the surplus area.