BABU RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the 16th January, 1962 land measuring 2.5 Standard Acres was declared surplus with one Narinder Singh by the Collector, Agrarian, Karnal. On the 8th June, 1964 Babu Ram petitioner made an application to the Collector saying that he had purchased 77 kanals and 10 marlas of land from Narinder Singh and the same being banjar should not have been declared surplus with Narinder Singh. He also stated that he had not been afforded any opportunity by the Collector, while declaring the surplus area. This application was rejected by the Collector on the 1st August, 1964. Against this order, he went in appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, two contentions were raised by him there. The first was that the land which he had purchased was banjar and the same could not be declared surplus according to the Bench decision of this Court in Shri Nemi Chand Jain v. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab, 1964 66 PunLR 278), where it was held that banjar jadid and banjar qadim land could not be taken into account while considering the surplus area under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The second was that he had not been heard by the Collector, Agrarian, before declaring surplus area, even though he was a vendee from Narinder Singh and had a right in this land. With regard to the first contention the learned Commissioner held that the area was declared surplus on the 16th January, 1962 in accordance with the interpretation of the law relating to banjar land prevailing at that time. This question could not be allowed to be reopened at that belated stage, simply on account of the decision given by this Court in Shri Nemi Chand Jain's case. Moreover, there was nothing on the record to show that the so-called banjar land was not put to some use subservient to agriculture. As regards the second contention, the same found favour with the learned Commissioner, with the result that he accepted the appeal and directed that Babu Ram be heard, as to why the area purchased, by him should not be made a part of the area allowed to be retained by Narinder Singh as his permissible area. Since the first contention raised by Babu Ram was repelled by the Commissioner, he went in revision before the learned Financial Commissioner, who dismissed the same on the 27th May, 1965 with the following remarks :-

(2.) After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that this petition must succeed. As would be clear from the narration of facts given above, the learned Commissioner has accepted the second contention of the petitioner and has directed that he should be heard by the Collector, Agrarian, before the surplus area is declared in the hands of Narinder Singh. It means that the previous declaration of surplus area no more stands and the case is being reopened. That implies that the learned Commissioner was of the view that the petitioner was entitled to a hearing before the declaration of the surplus area and also that the delay in filing the application before the Collector, Agrarian, by him for re-opening the matter had been condoned. The previous declaration of surplus area, according to the learned Commissioner was, therefore, not valid in law. After having held this, the learned Commissioner then could not say that the petitioner was debarred from raising the point regarding the banjar Jadid and banjar qadim land before the Collector, Agrarian, on the basis of Shri Nemi Chand Jain's case. If the declaration of surplus area has to be made afresh, then no restrictions can be placed on his rights and he can urge all the legal objections which he can take before the Collector, Agrarian. It would, of course, be for the Collector to accept those objections or not and whosoever is aggrieved by that order can go up in appeal or revision under the Act. It may be mentioned that the learned counsel for the State did not challenge before us the correctness of the decision in Shri Nemi Chand Jain's case, where it has also been held that -

(3.) In view of what I have said above, this petition succeeds and the Order of the learned Financial Commissioner is quashed. The Revenue Authorities will now decide the matter regarding the surplus area in the light of the observations made above. There would, however, be no order as to costs. I agree.