INDERJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions (Civil Writ Nos. 14 and 616 of 1964) will be disposed of by one order. They were posted for hearing along with three other writ petitions including C.W. No. 1453 of 1963 before a Full Bench which disposed of the common question of law by an order dated the 24th December, 1965. In regard to these two writ petitions, it was suggested that there were some additional points also which fell for decision and it was on this representation that these two writ petitions were left to be finally disposed of by a Single Bench, C.W. No. 14 of 1964 was directed to be heard by a Full Bench by Shamsher Bahadur, J. on the 18th December, 1964 and C.W. No. 616 of 1964 was directed by the admitting Bench to be heard with C.W. No. 985 of 1963 which was disposed of by the Full Bench.

(2.) The additional points raised in C.W. No. 14 of 1964 are contained in grounds 5 and 8 of the writ petition. It has been averred in the writ petition that petitioners No. 1 to 3 who are sons of Rajinder Singh, respondent No. 5 and petitioner No. 4 who is the widowed mother of respondent No. 5, are Jat agriculturists and follow custom in matters of inheritance. Rajinder Singh is alleged to have partitioned his ancestral family land in 1956 and thereby gifted half share of his land in favour of the petitioners, the mutation of gift having been sanctioned on 6th October, 1956. Since the date of the gift, petitioners No. 1 to 3 have been in continuous possession of the gifted land. Rajinder Singh along with his brother Narinder Kumar Singh also surrendered in lieu of maintenance to Balwant Kaur, petitioner No. 4, one-fifth share of the entire land inherited by them from Balwant Kaur's husband Waryam. Singh. It is the land which is gifted and the land given in lieu of maintenance which is being claimed by the present petitioners to be excluded from consideration for the purposes of Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act No. 13 of 1955 (hereinafter called the Act). Reliance for this exemption has been placed on Section 32-M of the Act. According to him, Section 32-M is an independent provision and it has nothing to do with Section 32-FF which was, according to the petitioner's learned counsel, construed by the Full Bench in Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab,1963 PunLJ 83 C.W. No. 1453 of F.B. In my opinion, even this argument is concluded by the decision of the Full Bench and this is not a point which was left for independent consideration on that occasion, but otherwise too there is not much merit in the contention. Section 32-FF reads as under :-

(3.) Section 32-M dealing with ceiling on future acquisition by inheritance short of unnecessary details for the purposes of this case, reads as under :-