ISHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition by Ishar Singh under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order passed by the Collector, Bassi, dated the 30th November, 1964, annexure 'B', declaring 93 bighas and 8 biswas of his land as surplus area under the provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 has arisen out of the following facts.

(2.) The petitioner and Smt. Amar Kaur respondent No. 4 alongwith others jointly owned land situate in village Bhagwanpura but the different co-sharers were in exclusive possession of defined parcels of land comprised therein, although no regular partition of the joint khata had taken place. The Collector Agrarian, Bassi, by his order dated the 30th September, 1961, declared 6.14 Standard Acres of land as surplus with the petitioner, annexure 'A'. Some time later the Commissioner, Patiala Division, on an appeal preferred by Smt. Amar Kaur respondent No. 4 from the order of the Collector who had declared some land in her possession also as surplus area remanded the case to the Collector with the direction that he should decide the case of Smt. Amar Kaur afresh after hearing Ishar Singh, petitioner, as well. In pursuance of this order Ishar Singh was heard by the Collector, Agrarian, Patiala, who on receipt of list of Khasra numbers by Ishar Singh petitioner which he wanted to retain declared the rest of the area in his possession as surplus. This he did by his impugned order dated the 30th November, 1964. The petitioner felt aggrieved from the above order and preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, and while doing so he observed :-

(3.) The petitioner impugned the validity of the Collector's order dated the 30th November, 1964, annexure 'B' on the allegations that the same proceeded on the premises that the entire land which was in his possession was also his ownership although this was wrong. He also pleaded that once the Collector had declared certain area of land in his possession as surplus, his case could not be re-opened at any subsequent stage for ascertaining whether the surplus area of land in his possession had previously been correctly determined. He further averred that the Collector while passing the impugned order did not take into consideration that a substantial area of land now left with him was banjar. The other grounds urged by him in support of his prayer as incorporated in paragraphs 8 and 9 were not pressed. Respondents 1 to 3 maintained that the impugned order was made by the Collector on the admission made by the petitioner before him and as such the same was upheld by the Commissioner in appeal and that being so it could not be assailed in the present proceedings. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 also adopted the same pleas. There is no doubt that the Collector passed his order dated the 30th November, 1964, which has been attacked in these proceedings on the basis of list filed by the petitioner before him. The list gave the khasra numbers of the land which he wanted to retain and further indicated that he would have no objection to the remaining part of the land in his possession being declared as surplus. The Collector passed the order on the petitioner's admission. The grounds set up in the present petition were not urged by the petitioner before the Collector. He is precluded from relying on them at this stage.