BHAG SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point urged by the petitioner in this case impugning the declaration of 37.54 standard acres of his holding as surplus area under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, is contained in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the writ petition, which are in the following words :-

(2.) In the corresponding paragraphs of the written statement of the respondents dated nil, it is averred in reply as below :-

(3.) From the above averments it is clear that the original holding of the petitioner was 67.54 standard acres, that the permissible limit of the petitioner was 30 standard acres, that on that basis surplus area of 37.54 standard acres was declared, that consolidation proceedings had gone on in the village upto the repartition stage in which the holding, to which the petitioner is entitled as a result of the consolidation, is only 50 standard acres, and that actual physical possession of the entire holding of the petitioner is still with him because the finalisation of the consolidation proceedings has been stayed by this Court. On the above facts this case seems to fall clearly within the law laid down by Harbans Singh, J. in his Lordship's unreported judgment dated February 4, 1963, in Bachan Singh and another v. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab Chandigarh and others, Civil Writ 1366 of 1962 and by H.R. Khanna, J. in Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab and another,1965 1 ILR(P&H) 88. In Mahgar Singh's case, the petitioner had come up to this Court against the order passed during consolidation proceedings declining to give him two standard acres of land out of the area which had been declared surplus on the ground that as a result of consolidation proceedings Maghar Singh had been left only with 28 standard acres against his permissible limit of 30 standard acres. The order was quashed by this Court and it was held that it is only the area which is in excess of the permissible limit that can be declared to be surplus and that as a result of the operation of Section 32-MM of the Act, if as a result of consolidation proceedings the total area, to which a landowner becomes entitled, is reduced below his permissible limit it is the new area which is to be taken into consideration and not the area which was held by him before consolidation.