CHET RAM Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of four writ petitions Chet Ram etc. v. The Collector etc. (Civil Writ No. 2510 of 1964), Mula Ram v. State (Civil Writ No. 380 of 1965), Shiv Lal v. State etc. (Civil Writ No. 1354 of 1965) and Kundan etc. v. State (Civil Writ No. 1443 of 1965) in which a common question is involved regarding the declaration of surplus area before the consolidation operations.

(2.) It may be mentioned that in all the four petitions, a question was first raised but now having been settled by authority is no longer pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It relates to the declaration of surplus area where the land is held by a person as the karta or a member of the joint Hindu family.

(3.) It has further been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in these cases that after the surplus areas had been declared, consolidation operations took place. It is the allegation of all the petitioners that after the consolidation operations they were not given any opportunity to reserve or select the permissible areas. According to sub-section (2) of Section 24-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act "where, after the declaration of the surplus area of any person and before the utilisation thereof, his land has been subjected to the process of consolidation, the officers, referred to in sub-section (1) shall be component to separate the surplus area of such person out of the area of land obtained by him after consolidation". There can be no manner of doubt that after the declaration of surplus area and before its utilisation the Consolidation Officers during consolidation proceedings have to separate the surplus areas of the landowners concerned. Harbans Singh, J., in Munshi Singh v. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rewari and another,1964 PunLR 85 , has held that the authority should also ask the landowner after the consolidation proceedings to reserve or declare the area which he wanted to keep. The position has been conceded by the learned Advocate-General to this extent that if consolidation operations have been taken up after the declaration of surplus areas, this question has to be determined afresh. The Advocate-General, however, does not admit that in every case a landowner has to be asked to make his choice. According to the submission made by him where the Consolidation Officer has separated the blocks of surplus areas and permissible areas, the landowner has no option but to accept what has been reserved as permissible area. The owners have to be asked according to the ruling of Harbans Singh, J., in Munshi Singh's case to make a selection of their surplus areas once consolidation operations have started after the declaration of surplus areas. Mr. Jain, further submits that in some of these cases the landowners area, in consequence of the consolidation operations, has diminished. This allegation is denied on behalf of the Advocate-General. As I said in Nawal v. The Financial Commissioner Punjab, 1964 PunLJ 161, if as a result of consolidation operations after the passing of the Collector's order declaring surplus area landowner's holding suffered a diminution, the proper course would be to ask the Collector, to redetermine the permissible and surplus areas of the landowner in view of consolidation operations. In consequence, the only order, which can be passed in their petitions is that the authority concerned will redetermine the surplus areas and the permissible areas of the landowners in view of the decisions of Harbans Singh, J., in Munshi Singh v. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rewari and another , and that of mine in Nawal v. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab, . There would be no order with regard to costs in regard to these petitions.