GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In April 1968, Section 51-A was inserted in the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 with restrospective effect. It was inter alia provided that "land ......... granted for gallantry at any time before the 26th day of January, 1950, to any member of the armed forces ...... shall not be taken into account in computing the surplus area under this Act ......." Dhanna Singh was granted land and gallantry in what is now a part of Pakistan. On partition, he had migrated to India. Would Dhanna Singh be not entitled to the protection of Section 51-A? This is the primary question that arises for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal. The sequence of events as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.

(2.) Dhanna Singh was allotted land by way of a military grant. On partition of the country, he had migrated to India. He was initially allotted 123.102 acres of land which was equal to 79.390 standard acres. Ultimately, he was found entitled to the allotment of 54. 3-1/4 standard acres of land. This land was allotted to him in what was then know as Village Budhlada, Tehsil Mansa. A finding in this behalf was given by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, vide Order dated March 5, 1964.

(3.) The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was promulgated in the year 1955. Section 3 of the Act inter alia provided that the permissible limit shall mean "thirty standard acres of land ......" Since Dhanna Singh had been allotted land in excess of this permissible limit, proceedings for determination of the surplus area were initiated. Vide order dated March 28, 1961, 28.68 standard acres of land beloning to Dhanna Singh was declared surplus. This was an ex parte order. Dhanna Singh submitted objections. These were decided by the Collector, Bathinda vide order dated June 9, 1961. The area which was included in the surplus pool was specified. On March 5, 1962 , the surplus land was allotted to respon-dents Nos. 4 to 9 in this appeal. Vide order dated March 5, 1964 the entitlement to Dhanna Singh was found to be 54.3-1/4 standard acres instead of 58.3/4 standard acres. Dhanna Singh filed a revision petition which was dismissed vide order dated March 2,1967.