AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole point, which has been raised in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, is that after the declaration of the surplus area in the hands of the petitioner on 26th July, 1961, consolidation proceedings have taken place and the area left with the petitioner has been reduced and that the petitioner is entitled to the full limit of the permissible area as has been held in Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab,1965 1 ILR(P&H) 88, as also in Bachan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner, Civil Writ No. 1366 of 1962, decided on 4th February, 1963.

(2.) In the return which has been filed, it is admitted that the petitioner originally owned 56.92 ordinary acres before the consolidation operations started and the declaration with regard to the surplus area was made. After consolidation operations, the petitioner has got 4.37 ordinary acres less than his original holding. It is stated that the reduction in the land is due to the fact that reservations had been made for common purposes etc. In the first decision it has been held that it is only the area which is in excess of the permissible area which can be declared to be surplus where the proceedings under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 are still pending and if as a result of the consolidation proceedings the total area to which a landowner becomes entitled is less than the area previously held by him it is that new area which should be taken into consideration and not the area which had been held by him before the consolidation. In the second case, after the revenue authorities had declared certain Khasra numbers as surplus, consolidation proceedings took place as a result of which the area allotted on repartition became reduced. The position taken up by the State in that case was reasonable, namely that the petitioner would be allowed to retain the permissible area and the balance only, if any, would be treated and taken over by the State as surplus. The learned Judge accordingly gave directions that the petitioner would be entitled to retain land of his choice to the extent of the permissible area and only the balance would be treated as surplus.

(3.) The learned Advocate-General contends that where declaration with regard to surplus area has already been made and consolidation operations take place and as a result of certain area being included in the common pool the landowner is left with less than the permissible area, there should be no objection on the part of the landowner as he must part with a portion of his property for the purposes of reservations made for common purposes in consolidation proceedings. He further contends that as a result of consolidation a landowner owing to the nature and quality of his land may find that he is entitled to less area and, therefore, no such general rule can be laid down that whenever, the area in the hands of a landowner becomes reduced as a result of consolidation proceedings, there should be interference with the surplus area, if already declared. He, however, concedes that if consolidation precedes declaration of surplus area, then the landowner must be left with the permissible area and any reduction that may have resulted on account of reservations having been made for common purposes cannot affect the limit of the permissible area to which he would be entitled. Logically I do not understand why any distinction should be made in the converse case like the present, where declaration of surplus area had preceded the consolidation operations. At any rate, the combined result of two decisions of this Court already referred to is in favour of the petitioner and I would accordingly allow the petition and quash the order of the Collector dated 26th July, 1961 and further direct that he should make a fresh declaration of the surplus area in accordance with law,. I like to make it clear that the petitioner would be entitled to be left with such permissible area to which he would be entitled under the law in standard acres. The parties are left to bear their own cost.