PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3. 11. 1988 dismissing the writ petition vide which appellant-the petitioners sought quashing of order passed by the respondents-authorities regarding declaration of surplus area of Natha Singh.

(2.) NATHA Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants owned land exceeding the permissible limits in village Sirthala, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana. Proceedings for declaration of surplus area under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 were initiated against him. The Collector (Agrarian) vide his order dated 17. 8. 1960 declared 134 bighas and 7 biswas of his land as surplus. According to the appellants the area declared surplus had not been utilised under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. In the meantime Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 came into force and notice Under Section 9 (1) of the Act was issued to the petitioner to surrender possession of the land declared surplus i. e. in all 134 bighas and 7 biswas of land. Petitioners resisted the notice, filed objections, inter-alia pleading that long before the crucial date i. e. 30. 9. 1956 on 17. 7. 1954 Natha Singh had transferred 3/4th share of his total land to his three sons, namely, Hardayal Singh, Harpal Singh and Baldev Singh (now deceased) by an oral gift and by way of family settlement cum-partition of joint Hindu family property. Natha Singh retained only 1/4th share for himself. Appellants' objections Under Section 9 (1) of the Punjab Land reforms Act were, however, rejected by the Collector (Agrarian) vide order dated 31. 3. 1975. Further appeal before Commissioner too met the same fate and finally the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 2. 9. 1979 dismissed the revision petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants argued that learned Single Judge appears to have been swayed by the decision of the division Bench in Nachhattar Singh and Ors. v. The Collector, Agrarian, Bhatinda and Anr. , 1975 P. L. J. 8 and so dismissed the writ petition. However, according to the counsel this decision infact had been reversed by the Full Bench judgment in Ranjit Rant v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and others, (1981)83 P. L. R. 492 (F. B.), which has also been affirmed by the apex Court in Ujjagar Singh (Dead) by L. R. s. v. The Collector Bhatinda and another, 1996 P. L. J. 505 and so on this short ground alone the appeal merits acceptance. Counsel further argued that the possession of land declared surplus under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act had not been taken by the State Government till the Punjab Land Reforms Act came into force on 2. 4. 1973. This being so, it was incumbent upon the authorities to initiate fresh steps for fixing of ceiling of land owners in accordance with the provisions of Punjab Land Reforms Act i. e. as Natha Singh had three adult units, he had a right to retain permissible area for himself and for each of his additional units, namely, for his three sons and it is only thereafter if any other area is left the same could be declared surplus and utilised under the provisions of Punjab Land Reforms Act and the Rules framed thereunder.