Hari Singh (Dead) through LRs. vs State of Punjab

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—The petitioner, who was a big landowner, surplus area was determined by an order dated July 19, 1963 under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. Under said order, the petitioner Hari Singh, was declared as having surplus area of 93 standard acres. According to the petitioner, the said surplus area was not utilised and he remained in possession thereof. Subsequently, in the year 1982, notice was affixed on his house directing him to give possession of the surplus area in favour of the State within a period of ten days from the date of notice, namely, June 30, 1982. Petitioner Hari Singh filed this writ petition challenging the said notice, said to have been issued under Section 9 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the surplus area under the Punjab Land Reforms Act has not been determined so far and (sic) which has been determined under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, Punjab Land Reforms Act, the Government has no power to take possession of the said surplus area until the surplus area of the landowner has been redetermined under the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act.

It may be mentioned here that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner Hari Singh, died on March 11, 1988, and his grand sons have been impleaded as his legal representatives by an order of even date in C.M. No. 10306 of 1988.

Learned counsel for the State fairly stated that no orders have been passed determining the surplus area of the petitioner under the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act. It is, therefore, to be seen whether the State can take possession of the property which has been declared as surplus under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, without redermining the surplus area of the landowner under the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act. It has been held in Nachhatar Singh v. State, 1982 PLJ 232 as follows :

In view of the latest Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ranjit Ram v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and others, 1981 PLJ 259, the impugned order of the learned Collector becomes unsustainable as according to the learned Judges of this Bench with the enforcement of the new Act, that is the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, the area in the hands of a big landowner has to be reassessed for determining his permissible limit unless the area declared under the old Act, that is, Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, had been utilised prior to the coming into force of the new Act."

The same view was also taken in Mohinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1984 R.R.R. 648 : 1982 PLJ 492.

Admittedly, the surplus area which has been declared under the provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, has not been utilised. It is also not disputed that the surplus area of the landowner has not been determined or reassessed under the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. Therefore, notice issued by the Collector (Agrarian Reforms) Malerkotla under Section 9 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act on June 30, 1982, cannot be sustained. The said notice is accordingly quashed. However, it is open to the authorities acting under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, to redetermine the surplus area of the petitioner in accordance with law under the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act and take necessary action thereafter in accordance with law.

Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.