STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. MEHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The true import of the press note incorporating and publicising the policy decision of the Punjab Government with regard to the disposal of surplus rural evacuee agricultural land, is indeed the sole question that falls for determination in this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute nor in a wide compass. Mehar Singh and Gurdev Singh respondents had brought the writ petition seeking an allotment of the surplus evacuee agricultural land under the government's policy decision and since the writ petition qua Gurdev Singh was dismissed and no appeal has been preferred on his behalf, any reference to the merits of this case is not called for. It suffices to mention that Mehar Singh respondent who admittedly is a non-scheduled caste and the owner of 8 kanals 14 marlas of land in his own right had filed an application before the prescribed authority for the allotment of land under the conditions prescribed in the press note of September 4, 1974. This application was dismissed on December 12, 1974, primarily on the ground that as this respondent was an owner of land, he was, therefore, ineligible for allotment.

(3.) Construing the press-note, the learned Single Judge took the view that as the holdings of Mehar Singh respondent was less than 10 ordinary acres, he was entitled to be considered for allotment and consequently allowed the writ petition and directed that his claim be decided de novo, after affording him adequate opportunity of being heard in the light of the observations made. Mr. N.S. Bhatia, the learned counsel for the State has plausibly and forcefully contended that the interpretation placed by the learned Single Judge upon the policy decision of the government, is erroneous and not in consonance with the plain language thereof. It was submitted that so far as non-scheduled castes and non-Rai Sikhs were concerned, the clear policy decision was that only landless agriculturists and landless agricultural workers would be entitled to allotment. On these premises, it was submitted that respondent No. 1 Mehar Singh being admittedly the owner of an area of land in his own right, would not come within the category of landless agriculturist or landless agricultural worker.