HARCHAND SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR AGRARIAN BHOTINDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DOUBTS about the correctness of a long line of precedent consistently followed in this Court for nearly two decades have necessitated this reference to a Full Bench.

(2.) THE facts are neither in dispute nor in a wide compass. An area of 1. 78 S. A was declared surplus in the hands of Harchand Singh petitioner by the authorities under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. However, it is the common case that this area was never utilised as such and continued to he in the possession of the petitioner till September 14, 1973, when consolidation proceedings commenced in his village with regard to his holding. The scheme of the consolidation was duly prepared and the repartition announced wherein no separate tak for him had been carved out, at the stage of preferring the writ petition. It is the common case that under the scheme of consolidation the total holding of the petitioner was reduced by more than 5 per cent due to the general cut made for the reservation of the land for various common purpose such as the extension of the abadi, Panchayat Farm, School playground etc. it is averred that the holding of the petitioner came to be reduced by more than 3 S. As. with the result that no land of the petitioner would be rendered surplus in his hands under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.

(3.) THE case first came up before M. R. Sharma, J. , and therein it seems to be more or less assumed that the benefit of the decrease of the acreage. due to consolidation would inevitably have to go to the petitioner. However, the learned Judge took the view that after the, coming into force of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, it would be a moot point whether the surplus area in his hands should he determined afresh under the Punjab Land Re-forms Act, 1972, or he should he allowed to retain the 30 S. As. of land under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Taking the view that this issue raised important questions of law which would govern a number of similar cases, the learned Judge referred the n-batter to a larger Bench for determining the aforesaid specific question. When the matter came before the Division Bench, this issue, however seems to have taken an entirely secondary status. This was so because the Bench chose to express a vacillating doubt about the correctness of a number of Single Bench and Division Bench judgments of this Court holding that the landlord is entitled to have the diminution of his land in consolidation proceedings taken into consideration for the purposes of the declaration of his surplus area before the proceedings thereof are completed. It was briefly observed by the Division Bench that there appeared to be no good reason for the earlier determination of the surplus area to become questionable just because consolidation proceedings have taken place later on Consequently, the case was referred to a Full Bench to test the correctness of the settled view of the Court.