JANG SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jang Singh petitioner is a landowner of village Jatana Kalan in district Bhatinda and from his land situate therein, 7.77 Standard Acres were declared surplus by the order of the Collector, Mansa, district Bhatinda on the 10th of May, 1961. It is, however, expressly averred that the petitioner continues to be in actual physical cultivating possession of the area, so declared surplus. After the above declaration of surplus area, the village of the petitioner was brought under the consolidation of holdings and on account of deductions from his holdings for the common purpose etc., his area was considerably reduced and he was in fact left with less than his permissible area. The petitioner, therefore, on the 29th of April, 1964, made an application to the Collector Agrarian having jurisdiction to reconsider the case of the petitioner as due to consolidation his area had been considerably reduced. The Collector, however, dismissed this application on the 22nd of September, 1964, and subsequently the Commissioner, Patiala Division and the Financial Commissioner also declined interference by way of revision.

(2.) The facts as averred above in the petition are not broadly in dispute in the return filed on behalf of the respondent-State. On the point of possession, however, it was stated that after recording of the statement of the petitioner on the 9th of July, 1963, the possession of the surplus land was delivered to eligible tenants in May, 1964. However, neither the names of these tenants have been specified nor does the record produced before us at the time of the hearing of the petition shows that actual cultivating possession was in fact delivered to them or even that the petitioner was dispossessed of the same. The Motion Bench whilst admitting the petition had stayed the dispossession of the petitioner from June, 1966 onwards and it is expressly reiterated on behalf of the petitioner that he continues to be in possession. In this very context the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State had not even taken up the position that the area declared surplus remains unutilised so far and is in the possession of the petitioner.

(3.) This petition was admitted to hearing by a Division Bench on the 27th of July, 1966, apparently because of the importance on the question raised therein but the same now seems fully covered by authority. Mr. Daljit Singh relies on Maghar Singh V. State of Punjab and another,1965 1 ILR(P&H) 88, wherein Khanna, J. had held as follows :-