STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. MAGHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent from the judgment and order, dated August 24, 1964, of a learned Single Judge, accepting a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by Maghar Singh respondent and quashing the order, dated July 30, 1962, of the Collector Agrarian Reforms, Bhatinda, appellant 2, appellant 1 being the State of Punjab.

(2.) The facts are not a matter of controversy at this stage in this appeal. The land of the respondent is within the revenue estate of village Matti in Tehsil Mansa of District Bhatinda. Proceedings were started with regard to the land with the respondent by appellant 2 under the provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (Pepsu Act 13 of 1955), for the matter of finding out and declaring surplus area with him. A draft statement under Section 32-D of that Act was issued on November 25 and served on December 4, 1959, on the respondent. Certain area was declared surplus with the respondent by an order of the Collector of Mansa made on April 19, 1960. It is admitted in the return filed by the appellants as respondents to the petition of the present respondent in this appeal that "Surplus area was declared earlier than the consolidation operations were finalised. The reduction in the holding of the petitioner is due to the consolidation operations and should not affect the surplus area already declared by the Collector." It is apparent that while appellant 2 moved under the provisions of Pepsu Act 13 of 1955 for the matter of finding out and declaring surplus area, if any, with the respondent, before he could do that and while the proceedings under that Act were pending, appellant 1 proceeded, by a notification under Section 14(1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act 50 of 1948), to start consolidation of holdings in respondent's village. With the beginning of the consolidation of holdings starting with the notification under Section 14(1) of the East Punjab Act 50 of 1948, the holdings with the right-holders in the particular village came in a common pool and were liable to be distributed in repartition under the provisions of that Act, subject to such deductions in the area ratably from the right-holders as the provisions of that Act and the rules under the same admitted. So, when the consolidation of holdings started in the village of the respondent, the land already with him before the starting of the consolidation lost its identity, having come in the common pool for the matter of consolidation and repartition of the holdings of the right-holders. So that there was no specific area then available which could be declared surplus by appellant 2 in the hands of the respondent. Appellant 2 could not proceed to show, out of the holding of the respondent of particular survey numbers, some defined survey numbers which comprised the surplus area, because such description of the lands in the estate of the village of the respondent ceased with the start of the consolidation of holdings in the village. The order that appellant 2 made before the conclusion of those proceedings was merely an order on the basis of certain entries in the revenue records earlier to the start of the consolidation in the village. Because the consolidation of holdings operations, those entries had ceased to have real bearing to the actual holding of a right-holder in the estate of the village. The order of appellant 2 merely proceeded on the paper entries when the previous holding of the respondent had gone out of his hands and passed into the common pool. No doubt respondent was entitled to the same rights in the land allotted to him in consequence of repartition as he had in his previous holding because of Section 25 of East Punjab Act 50 of 1948, but it is apparent from the provisions of this last-mentioned Act and the rules thereunder, that no right-holder in consolidation ever obtains the same area of land in allotment on repartition as he held before the start of the consolidation proceedings. Consequently, in this case it is not denied that as a result of the consolidation of holdings in the village the holding of the respondent came to be reduced to 28 standard acres as compared to his holding previous to the consolidation operations which was 33 standard acres and 13 units. Previously, if before the start of the consolidation operations an order had been made by appellant 2 under the provisions of Pepsu Act 13 of 1955 declaring an area surplus with the respondent, that area would have been 3 standard acres and 13 units, but, as in consequence of the consolidation of holdings his area came to be reduced to 28 standard acres, under Section 3 of Pepsu Act 13 of 1955 his holding came to be within the 'permissible limit' of 30 standard acres. So there was no longer any surplus area with the respondent.

(3.) On the conclusion of the consolidation operations in the village, when his holding was thus reduced to that below the 'permissible limit' of 30 standard acres, having regard to Section 3 of Pepsu Act 13 of 1955, he moved an application to appellant 2 for declaration that he no longer possessed any surplus area and, in fact, for restoration of 2 standard acres to him which was declared surplus by the order of the Collector made on April 19, 1960. It was this application that was rejected by appellant 2 by his order of July 30, 1962, which order has been quashed by the learned Single Judge.