Avtar Singh vs State of Punjab and another

D.S. Tewatia, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has impugned the order of the Collector (Agrarian) Pathankot dated 10.8.1976, Annexure P.1, declaring his area surplus, inter alia, on the ground that he had not been given opportunity by the Collector to lead evidence and place the material on the record to show that the amount of irrigation received by him for his land and the extent of the area which received irrigation from Kuhl Dingra besides showing by the Collector the quality and the nature of the land which was required to be evaluated in terms of Rules 8, 9 and 10 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1973 read with note 1 to Schedule `A''.

The allegation that he had not been given opportunity to place the material on the record and lead evidence has not been denied on behalf of the respondent in the written statement.

Section 7 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in express terms envisages giving of opportunity of hearing to the landowner at the time of determination of the surplus area.

In view of the above, it is not necessary to go into other grounds raised in the petition and the impugned order is quashed on the ground of denial of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The case is remitted to the Collector for redecision of the surplus area case of the petitioner after affording him due opportunity to lead evidence and bring on the record material to show as to whether the land is irrigated or not and if irrigated whether for one crop or for two crops and how much land is so irrigated and also the nature and quality of the land for the purpose of evaluation in terms of Rules 8, 9 and 10 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1973 as interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court in Surakshat Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982 P.L.J. 254. No order as to costs.