(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24.1.2007, wherein the appellants as writ petitioners had questioned the notice, issued to them under Sec. 9 (1) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter known as "the 1972 Act"), asking them to deliver possession of the surplus land in their possession, the particulars of which have also been given in the notice mentioned above. The appellants had pleaded that this land measuring 384 bighas 4 biswas was gifted to Baba Sangtia by Baba Alla Singh of Patiala in the Eighteenth Century for rendering his services to the donor. The property devolved upon Mahant Bhajan Dass, the present Mohtmim of Samadh Sangtia. Mukand Ram, the present predecessor in interest of the writ petitioners, was in possession of the land measuring 367 bighas and 12 biswas, out of the total land of 384 bighas and 4 biswas, the subject matter of the writ. In the year 1961, land measuring 31 bighas and 18 biswas was declared surplus under the provisions of Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter known as "the 1955 Act"). Mukand Ram, who was a tenant on this portion of the land, was never issued any notice under the 1955 Act. He preferred a petition under Sec. 22 of this Act, seeking acquisition of proprietary rights, which were granted to him on 20.3.1963, by treating him as a qualified tenant under Sec. 20 of the Act. On the strength of this order, compensation was paid and mutation entered in favour of Mukand Ram, to be replaced by another mutation No. 3599 of 8.6.1974 in favour of the State Government, which pertains to the area declared surplus vide order dated 7.6.1961. After the death of Mukand Ram, the present appellants succeeded him to his estate.
(2.) Learned Single Judge negated the plea of the appellants by referring to Sec. 32-FF of the 1972 Act, to hold that since the property was declared surplus on 7.6.1961, the subsequent order dated 20.3.1963 under Sec. 22 of the Act would necessarily have to be ignored to favour the claim of the State, who pleaded ownership by the vesting of the land in them statutorily.
(3.) Before us, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on Sec. 32 E of the 1955 Act, which we may extract here below :-