ISHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated May 8, 1975, accepting C.W.P. No. 344 of 1967 filed by Inder Singh, respondent No. 3.

(2.) Inder Singh respondent owned land in village Labana Karmu, tehsil Nabha, and the Collector, Nabha, vide order dated May 28, 1960, declared 18.82 standard acres of land surplus with him. No appeal or revision was filed by Inder Singh against that order. The proceedings for consolidation of holdings took place in that village in 1961-62. After the consolidation of holdings, Inder Singh approached the Collector that since his area had been reduced during consolidation, he may be allowed to retain the permissible area of his choice to the extent of 30 standard acres. The Collector, vide order dated February 1, 1966, recommended to the Commissioner that he may be permitted to review the earlier order declaring surplus area of Inder Singh for affording relief to him. The Commissioner did not agree with the recommendation of the Collector on the ground that no review was permissible under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The claim of Inder Singh was consequently rejected. Feeling dis-satisfied with the order of the Commissioner, Inder Singh filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner who also dismissed the same vide order dated November 21, 1966. Inder Singh then filed C.W.P. No. 344 of 1966. It was argued on behalf of Inder Singh that the area declared surplus with him, except 3.36 standard acres had not been utilised before the consolidation of holdings and as such he was entitled to the benefit under sub-section (2) of Section 32-MM of the Act in the matter of selection of his permissible area. The learned Single Judge upheld the contention and consequently accepted the writ petition and remanded the case to the Collector, Agrarian, Nabha, for fresh determination of the surplus area with him after giving an opportunity to him and the tenants. It is against this order that the tenant-appellants have filed the present Letters Patent appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that so far as land measuring 3.36 standard acres allotted to Mangu, respondent No. 8, is concerned, there is no dispute inasmuch as it had admittedly been utilised before the consolidation of holdings. The argument proceeds that the remaining surplus land of Inder Singh had also been utilised before the consolidation of holdings and as such Inder Singh was not entitled to any benefit under sub-section (2) of Section 32-MM of the Act. We find no force in this contention. The consolidation of holdings admittedly took place in 1961-62 and the note dated November 23, 1966, in the jamabandi of the disputed land (copy Annexure 'A') clarified that Ishar Singh, appellant No. 1, Budh Ram, predecessor-in-interest of appellants Nos. 2 to 4, and Arjan Singh, predecessor-in-interest of appellants Nos. 5 to 8, had been allotted land out of the surplus area of Inder Singh and given actual possession in 1964. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the note recorded in the jamabandi is wrong and, in fact, the allottees had taken possession of the land earlier to the consolidation of holdings. In view of the documentary evidence, it is difficult to uphold this contention. The surplus area of Inder Singh, except to the extent of 3.36 standard acres was unutilised till the consolidation of holdings and in this situation, the learned Single Judge has rightly found that Inder Singh landowner is entitled to the benefit of sub-section (2) of Section 32-MM of the Act.