STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. MAUJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of Bains, J., dated February 28, 1975, by which Civil Writ Petition No. 1706 of 1966, was allowed and the Collector, Gohana, was directed to redetermine the surplus area after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner-respondent, in accordance with law.

(2.) The petitioner-respondent is a right-holder in village Rukhi, Tehsil Gohana, District Rohtak. On October 3, 1959, the Collector, Rohtak, declared 8 standard acres and 8 units of land as surplus with him. No appeal was filed against that order. According to the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner-respondent came to know of that order in the year 1965 when his dispossession was threatened by order of the Collector regarding surplus area. The application for review filed by him before the Collector was dismissed by his order dated October 27, 1965 and his revision petition against that order was dismissed by the Commissioner on April 26, 1966. Those orders of the Collector and the Commissioner were challenged in the aforesaid writ petition. After the declaration of surplus area of the petitioner-respondent, the entire land in the village was subjected to consolidation operations in the year 1965. According to the averments made in the writ petition Kurrahs regarding the permissible area allotted to the petitioner-respondent and those regarding the surplus area were not formed separately and the petitioner-respondent continued to remain in possession of his entire holding. It was also averred that the holding of the petitioner-respondent had been considerably reduced as a result of the consolidation operations. According to the petitioner-respondent, he had a right of redetermination of his permissible area and also declaration of surplus area after consolidation under Section 24-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, (hereinafter called the Act). In the reply filed by the Under Secretary to Government, Haryana, Revenue Department, it was admitted that as a result of consolidation operations, the permissible area of the petitioner-respondent and the surplus area had been reduced. It was also admitted that the application under Section 24-A of the Act, filed by the petitioner-respondent had also been rejected because in consolidation proceedings separate blocks had been formed in respect of the permissible area as well as the surplus area. The learned Judge, in view of these circumstances, allowed the writ petition and directed the collector, Gohana, to redetermine the surplus area of the petitioner-respondent and the surplus area had been reduced. It was also admitted that the application under Section 24-A of the Act, filed by the petitioner-respondent had also been rejected because in consolidation proceedings separate blocks had been formed in respect of the permissible area as well as surplus area. The learned Judge, in view of these circumstances, allowed the writ petition and directed the Collector, Gohana, to redetermine the surplus area of the petitioner-respondent.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-appellant that Section 24-A of the Act, had been misconstrued and the provisions of Section 10-A were not taken into consideration by the learned Judge. The relevant provisions of Section 24-A and Section 10-A, are reproduced below :-