KRISHAN KUMAR KESAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Maharaj Krishan was a big landowner and owned 72 acres 3 kanals and 5 marlas of land. As he failed to file a return in terms of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short, the 'Act') proceedings in Form 'D' were initiated against him on September 9, 1972. The Collector Agrarian, Jalandhar, vide his order dated March 30, 1976 (Annexure P1) decided the surplus area case of the landowner and declared some area surplus after ignoring some sale transactions that he had made. The landowner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division and while it was yet pending he died on September 18, 1978. The legal heirs who are the widow and the children of the landowner were duly impleaded as appellants before the Commissioner vide order dated 2nd January, 1981. The Commissioner vide his order dated June 27, 1979, allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Collector with a direction that the case be re-decided afresh. Aggrieved by the remand order of the Commissioner, the State of Punjab filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, who vide his dated February 23, 1983 (Annexure P3) accepted the revision petition filed by the State Government and set aside the order of remand. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed by the landowner.

(2.) The only ground urged by Mr. Sukhbir Singh the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that as the assessment in the hands of the landowner Shri Maharaj Krishan had been finalised under the Act and though the surplus area had been determined by the Collector, yet the same had not been utilized and the landowner having died on September 18, 1978 the holding in the hand of the petitioners who were the sons of the deceased landowner had to be re-assessed in the light of a decision of the Full Bench Ranjit Ram v. F.C. Revenue Punjab & Ors.,1981 PU 259, as approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ujjagar Singh (Dead) by LRs v. The Collector Bhatinda,1996 3 RLR 446

(3.) As against this, Mr. Gill the learned Deputy Advocate-General Punjab has argued that there was no evidence to indicate that the deceased landowner had any adult son on the appointed date and as such the ratio of the two judgments cited by Mr. Sukhbir Singh was not relevant to the point in issue.