KEHAR SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Maru son of Budha filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the order of the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, dated the 27th May, 1960, the 19th February, 1963 and the 2nd May, 1964 (Annexures 'C', 'D' and 'E') respectively.

(2.) During the pendency of the writ petition, Maru died. His five sons, widow and daughter filed Civil Miscellaneous No. 2787 of 1968 under Order 22, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for being impleaded as petitioners in the writ petition, which was allowed subject to all just exceptions by the Deputy Registrar on the 17th July, 1968. Thereafter, the legal representatives who were impleaded as petitioners, filed Civil Miscellaneous No. 4276 of 1968, for the amendment of the writ petition which was allowed by me on the 16th October, 1968.

(3.) The main ground pressed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that surplus area declared in the hands of Maru, landowner, has not been utilised and now it has been inherited by the petitioners, and cannot be declared surplus as they are small landowners and do not own more than the permissible area under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. Reliance is placed on the decision of D.K. Mahajan, J. in Shiv Lal v. Financial Commissioner, Development, Punjab and others,1964 PunLJ 44. On the other hand, the learned Advocate-General does not contest the proposition of law laid down in Shiv Lal's case but submits that the matter shall have to be decided again by the Collector. According to the learned Advocate-General, if the surplus area has not been utilised and the petitioners are small landowners, they would be entitled to keep the entire area which they have inherited after the death of Maru, but if the area has been utilised before the death of Maru, then the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. In my view the course suggested by the learned Advocate-General is proper and the matter shall have to be decided afresh by the Collector.