NAND LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against the order of the Collector dated the 28th of April, 1961, declaring 17 Standard Acres and 1-1/2 Units of petitioner's land as surplus. This order was upheld by the Financial Commissioner in revision.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that he was not in cultivating possession of the land at the time when he was required to file the return and that he, before the 30th of July, 1958 - the date of the commencement of the Act was not a person holding area more than the permissible area because up to the 13th of June, 1958, he had sold, by registered deeds, an area measuring 112 Bighas 4 Biswas; and on the 29th of January, 1960, the State Government had acquired 3 Bighas and 10 Biswas of his land. Therefore, at the date, when 17 Standard Acres and 1-1/2 Units were declared as surplus, he was holding no surplus land because his holding was below 80 Ordinary Acres or 30 Standard Acres. In the return filed by the State, the only fact disputed is that the petitioner held, before the transfer, 436 Bighas 16 Biswas and not 371 Bighas 6 Biswas, as alleged by him; and that the petitioner did not file a return, as required by section 32-B. It is nowhere alleged that the petitioner was in cultivating possession of the land at the time when he was required to file the return. The mere fact, that the petitioner was owner of land, is per se not enough to warrant the conclusion that he had to file a return. This matter has been settled by a Division Bench of this Court. See in this connection the decision in Smt. Bhagwan Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 1963 65 PunLR 479. The further requirement is that he mast be cultivating the land. The Financial Commissioner merely rejected his petition on the ground that it was belated. The real grievance of the petitioner has not so far been examined by any one of the relevant authorities. The questions, that require determination are : (1) whether, on the date, when the Act came into force, the petitioner was or was not possessed of land more than 80 Ordinary Acres or 30 Standard Acres ? and (2) whether the petitioner was or was not in cultivating possession of the land at the time when he was required to file return under section 32-B of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 ?

(3.) In this situation, the only proper course to adopt is to allow the petition and quash the impugned order with a direction to the authorities to determine these questions afresh. The petition is accordingly allowed; but there will be no order as to costs. It is now for the Collector to determine, after hearing the petitioner, whether there is any surplus area with him; and if so, how much.