PIAR KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts are simple and straight. Petitioner is the widow of Kesar Singh. Vide order December 19, 1960, the Special Collector found 53 standard acres and 9 units of land as surplus in the hands of Kesar Singh under the provisions if the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Subsequent thereto the petitioner obtained a decree on November 11, 1965 (copy Annexure P.1) against Kesar Singh for the possession of 21 standard acres and 11-7/8 units of land on the plea that the sale consideration of that land had been paid by Kesar Singh out of the Istri Dhan of the petitioner and he wrongly got the entire land registered in his name. The petitioner also acquired 17 standard acres and 3-3/8 units of land of way of succession from a pre-deceased son. By the time Kesar Singh died on June 25, 1969, 7 standard acres and 12-3/4 units of land out of the land found surplus with him were utilised under the provisions of Act. Thus by the time the present proceedings for the determination of the surplus area in the hands of the petitioner were initiated, she was found to be the owner of 40 standard acres and 11-5/6 units of land and the Collector vide his order dt. April 27, 1976, declared 2 standard acres and 15-1/2 units as surplus with her. Copy of this order is Annexure P.3. However, on appeal, this order was set aside by the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur, and the case was sent back to the Collector for decision afresh. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against this order was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide his order dated May 31, 1979. Accordingly, the entire area in the hands of the petitioner has been redetermined under the provisions of the Act. The Collector vide his order dated May 14, 1981 (Annexure P.4) held that the entire land which she got from Kesar Singh through P.2 continue to be surplus in her hands. He only allowed 17 standard acres and 3-3/8 units, which she had inherited from a pre-deceased son, as her permissible area. The petitioner remained unsuccessful in impugning this order before the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. The latter vide his order dated December 10, 1984 (Annexure P.9) though, in the light of the Full Bench Decision of this Court in Smt. Ajit Kaur and others V. The Punjab State and others, 1980 PunLJ 354, held that "where the surplus area and the permissible area in the hands of landowner were determined under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and thereafter the landowner died resulting in acquisition of the holding by his heirs, the protection to the heirs in the matter of determination of surplus areas in their hands, as embodied in section (5) of section 11 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act , will be fully available", yet declined to grant of benefit of section 10-A(b) of the Act to the petitioner on account of the fact that she had not inherited the area from her husband and had rather got it by way of gift vide decree dated November 11, 1965 (Annexure (P.2). For this conclusion of his, he firmly relied on the observations made by a learned Single Judge of this Court, A.S. Bains, J., in Shri Hari Singh and others V. State of Haryana and others, 1978 PunLJ 365. Though this judgment does support the conclusion of the Financial Commissioner, yet it deserves to be noticed that the same learned Judge while dealing with a similar situation in Lorind Chand V. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others,1979 PunLJ 922, in the context of the question whether 24 standard acres and 11 units of land sold by the petitioner Lorind Chand on May 4, 1957, which land of course had not been utilised by the time he, i.e., the petitioner died on August 19, 1968 was available for utilisation after his death, observed as follows :-

(2.) We are, therefore, satisfied that the impugned orders of the authorities under the Act, i.e., the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, Annexures P.3, P.7 and P.9 respectively, are wholly unsustainable and deserve to be set aside. We order accordingly. The necessary outcome of this conclusion of ours is that the case goes back to the Collector for going into the matter afresh in accordance with law and the observations made above. We, however, pass no order as to costs. Order accordingly.