PUNJAB STATE Vs. BACHAN SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff No.1 Bachan Singh, his sons Gurdev Singh alias Gurdeep Singh, Darshan Singh and Nishan Singh and wife Gurdial Kaur filed this suit against the State of Punjab for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their possession over the suit land measuring 574 Kanals 6 Marlas. According to the allegations in the plaint, Bachan Singh (plaintiff No.1) was recorded owner of the land detailed in plaint paragraph No.2 and was also in its possession as Karta of the Joint Hindu Family. On 7th March, 1956 a partition was effected amongst the plaintiffs, according to which Bachan Singh became owner to the extent of half-share in the above land whereas the remaining plaintiffs become owners of the other half. The factum of this partition was recorded in the revenue papers. That partition had been effected before the coming into force of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (for short the Act). Later on consolidation proceedings took place in the village in which suit land was allotted to the plaintiffs in lieu of the land held by them. In this land also Bachan Singh had half share, while the other half belonged to the other plaintiffs. The Collector (Agrarian), Barnala, commenced proceedings against Bachan Singh alone regarding the declaration of surplus area. The remaining plaintiffs were not made parties to those proceedings. Treating the whole land as belonging to Bachan Singh, the Collector (Agrarian) vide order dated 28th February, 1963 declared 25 standard acres and 5-1/2 standard units as surplus out of the whole land. Bachan Singh appealed but he was not successful. According to the plaintiffs, the said order of the Collector (Agrarian) was null and void as partition had been effected before the coming into force of the Act and, therefore, the share of the remaining plaintiffs could not be considered as belonging to Bachan Singh, plaintiff, and no notice of the surplus proceedings was given to the other plaintiffs.

(2.) The defendant contested the suit and pleaded that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The suit was barred by time. It was further pleaded that the order of the Collector (Agrarian) was valid. The other allegations of the plaintiffs were also controverted.

(3.) Upon the allegations of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues :-