DULA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of two writ petitions, that is, Civil Writ No. 1398 and No. 2347 of 1963. Since common questions arise in both the cases, the facts of Dula Singh's case (Civil Writ No 1398 of 1963) may alone be stated. The petitioner owned 46.82 standard acres of land in village Kot Fatta and in village Bajak in Tehsil Jaito within the district of Faridkot. He made certain claims under Section 32-B of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) for exemption of some of his land said to have been reserved for an orchard and for engaging in dairy business. By order dated June 27, 1960 (Annexure A), the Collector disallowed the exemption claimed by the petitioner and after allowing 30 standard acres as the permissible area of the petitioner declared the remaining 16.82 standard acres of his land in village Bajak as surplus area. Thereafter, consolidation proceedings took place in village Kot Fatta as a result of which, it was originally claimed by the petitioner, the total holding of the petitioner was reduced below his permissible limit if the surplus area, of 16.82 standard acres declared surplus by the Collector had still to be taken away from him. In May 1963, the petitioner received a notice in form IX-A to receive Rs. 1885.50 Ps. as compensation under Section 32-G of the Act for his land in village Bajak, which had been declared surplus. In July 1963 the petitioner filed an application before the Collector Bhatinda for re-assessment of his surplus area on the allegation that as a result of consolidation proceedings his permissible area had been diminished. The application was only for the re-assessment of the surplus area and no question relating to the quantum of compensation payable to him under Section 32-G of the Act was raised in the application though notice regarding the same had admittedly been received by him prior to the making of the application for re-assessment. In the said application (Annexure B) the petitioner prayed that he might be allowed to retain with him area up to 30 standard acres of his choice even after the consolidation proceedings.

(2.) It was in the above circumstances that the petitioner came to this Court on 29th July, 1963, under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of the entire proceedings taken by the Collector, Agrarian Reforms. A further prayer was made in the petition to direct the Collector to "refer the case to the Pepsu Land Commission for adjudication regarding the exempted land to the petitioner" and it was also prayed that the petitioner might be "allowed to retain area up to 30 standard acres". A prayer was then added in the petition to the following effect :-

(3.) An application for stay of petitioner's dispossession from the alleged surplus area, even without issuing the prescribed advance notice to the other side, was made with the writ petition. The Motion Bench (Grover and Dua, JJ.) admitted the writ petition on July 30, 1963, and directed stay of dispossession of the petitioner meanwhile. The writ petition has been contested on behalf of the respondents. They have filed written statement of the Under Secretary to Government Punjab in the Revenue Department dated nil accompanied by affidavit dated November 22, 1963, wherein it is averred that the petitioner himself had made a statement before the Naib Tehsildar on the 3rd March, 1960, to the effect that neither he had planted any garden nor he had started any dairy farm and that since no land of the petitioner was under garden or dairy, the question of referring the case to the Pepsu Land Commission could not arise. Regarding the alleged diminishing of the petitioner's permissible area, it has been stated in the return that, in fact, the holding of the petitioner has increased on account of the consolidation proceedings and has not decreased. It has also been revealed in the written statement that the petitioner filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, who has remanded the case to the Collector with the direction that surplus land should be taken from his original holding from Kot Fatta and if there is deficiency it should be made up from the land situated in village Bajak. According to the written statement, specific area of the petitioner which has to be declared surplus, would be determined in the light of the observations of the Financial Commissioner.