HANS RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point which arises for determination in this writ petition which has been referred to Division Bench at the instance of my learned brother Narula, J. centers on the validity of the rule laid down by D.K. Mahajan, J. in Bhalle Ram V. The State of Punjab,1962 PunLR 331.

(2.) One Hanuman had gifted his entire property measuring 103 standard acres and 7 units in 1951 in favour of his three minor sons, Hans Raj, Gian Parkash and Satya Paul, who are the petitioners. Hans Raj sold 87 bighas of this land on 20th of June, 1958, to Mallu Ram and Hazari Lal by a registered sale-deed of the date. Gian Parkash and Satya Paul there upon filed a suit for possession by pre-emption of this land. A decree was granted in favour of Gian Parkash and Satya Paul on 21st of November, 1958. The Collector in computing the surplus area in the hands of the petitioners ignored this decree and on 17th May, 1961, declared 13 standard acres and 7 units to be surplus. Against this order, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner which was dismissed on 22nd of October, 1962. A revision petition to the Financial Commissioner suffered the same fate on 24th of September, 1963. The three sons of Hanuman have now come to this Court in writ proceedings to challenge the order of the Collector passed on 17th of May, 1961, and affirmed in appeal and revision by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner.

(3.) The sole point requiring consideration is whether the sale of 87 bighas of land should be excluded from consideration in computing surplus area under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act). Section 19-A of the Act places a bar on future acquisition of land in excess of permissible area. The effect of sub-section (1) of Section 19-B is that if a land is transferred before 30th of July, 1958, it would not be taken into account in declaration of surplus area. Mahajan, J. held in Bhalle Ram V. The State of Punjab, that the area transferred before 30th of July, 1958, could not still be treated as the property of the alien or for purposes of computing the surplus area. Soon after this decision, an amendment was brought in theAct by Punjab Act No. 14 of 1962, and the words "subject to the provisions of Section 10-A" were added at the beginning of sub-section (1) of Section 19-B, with the consequent result that the restriction placed in this provision is made subject to Section 10-A, sub-section (c) of which says that :-