TARLOK SINGH Vs. F.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BAHADUR Singh son of Hakam Singh, resident of Village Gharinda, Tehsil Tarn Taran, District Amritsar (now Tarn Taran) was a big land owner. Being a big land owner, his land holding to the extent of area 42 standard acres-3/4 units was declared surplus by the then Collector, Agrarian Amritsar-II, vide his order dated 02.11.1960 (Annexure P-1). Bahadur Singh died on 30.05.1986. He was survived by his legal heirs, namely, Amarjit Singh son of Bahadur Singh, Jasbir Singh, Gurjinder Singh, and Gurmej Singh (stated to be wrongly mentioned as Gurmit Singh in the impugned order) sons of Amarjit Singh son of Bahadur Singh, Gurpartap Singh, Harparkash Singh, Gurdev singh sons of Gurmej Singh son of Bahadur Singh and Amir Kaur widow of Gurmej Singh son of Bahadur Singh (respondents No. 4 to 11). Out of his legal heirs, Gurpartap Singh and Gurmeet Singh had filed an application before the SDM-cum-Collector, for determination of the area. The Collector, Amritsar sought report from the Agrarian Branch and after recording the statement etc., found that out of the surplus area measuring 42 standard acres 3/4 units, 4.66 hectare area, still remained un-utilized and also found that the legal heirs of Bahadur Singh, did not have any surplus area. On the basis of the aforesaid conclusion and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Full Bench of this Court rendered in the case of "State of Punjab v Ranjit Ram", the Collector, Agrarian, Amritsar ordered that 4.66 hectares out of 42 standard acres, which remained un-utilized, be maintained in the name of the legal heirs of Bahadur Singh vide order dated 19.10.2001 (Annexure P-4). Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner challenged the same before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar by way of appeal, mainly on the following grounds :-

(2.) THE first argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the aforesaid orders is that no notice was ever issued to the petitioner while re-determining the surplus area even though the same had already been determined vide order dated 02.11.1960 (Anenxure P-1).

(3.) THE second argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is in cultivating possession of land measuring 204 kanals 13 marlas since 1964 as tenant and this area is Tenant Permissible Area under the law. Thus, the areas once declared surplus cannot be reverted back to the legal heirs of the deceased land owner.