Jagjit Singh and others vs State of Punjab

S.S. Kang, J. (Oral)

Jagjit Singh and his two sons Raghbir Singh and Randhir Singh have filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 13.2.1974 (Annexure P.1) passed by Collector, Jagraon whereby he declared 11 Standard Acres and 153/4 Units of land in the hands of Jagjit Singh, petitioner as surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 1953 Act) and for issuance of a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from taking possession of the land in dispute.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Jagjit Singh, petitioner owned 43 Standard Acres and 143/4 Units of land in village Ramgarh Sibian, Tehsil Jagraon, at the commencement of the 1953 Act. The surplus area case of the petitioner was decided by the Collector, Ludhiana on 23.7.1959. 20 Standard Acres of land were declared surplus. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order and the same was dismissed by the Commissioner, Jullundur Division on 28.9.1966. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab which was accepted by him by order dated 12.3.1968 and the case was remanded to the Collector for fresh decision inter alia on the ground that the transferees had not been heard and the banjar land had not been excluded from the assessable area of the landlord and that landowner''s sons cultivated land as tenantatwill at the commencement of the Act and the area under their cultivation may be left as tenant''s permissible area.

After remand, the case was taken up by the Collector, Jagraon on 18th of January, 1974. Jagjit Singh petitioner filed an application before the Collector that his case should be decided in accordance with the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter called `the new Act'') which had come into force on 24.3.1973. The main contention raised in the application was that Jagjit Singh, petitioner was entitled to select separate permissible area for each of his two sons who were adults. This application was not allowed and the Collector declared 11 Standard Acres and 153/4 Units of land as surplus in the hands of Jagjit Singh, petitioner by order dated 13.2.1974. It was held that the provisions of the 1953 Act were applicable and the provisions of the New Act were not attracted to the case. Jagjit Singh, petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, which was dismissed on 30.4.1975.

Notice under section 9 of the New Act was issued to Jagjit Singh, petitioner. He filed objections thereto but the authorities were not inclined to accept them. So, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

Mr. U.S. Sahni, learned counsel for the petitioners, has raised two points, (1) that by enforcement of the New Act on 24.3.1973, the provisions of the 1953 Act stood repealed and in accordance with the proviso to Section 28 of the New Act, the proceedings for determination of the surplus area pending before the Collector had to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the New Act, and (2) alternatively, the land declared surplus under the 1953 Act had not yet been utilised and its possession was still with the petitioners. Therefore, Jagjit Singh, petitioner had a right to select permissible areas for his two sons namely Randhir Singh and Raghbir Singh.

There is merit in both the contentions of the learned counsel. It will be appropriate to reproduce Section 28 of the New Act at this stage:

"(1) The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, in so far as these are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, are hereby repealed.

(2) The repeal of the enactments mentioned in subsection (1) hereinafter referred to as the said enactments, shall not affect

(i) the proceedings for the determination of the surplus area pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, under either of the said enactments, which shall be continued and disposed of as if this Act had not been passed, and the surplus area so determined shall vest in and be utilised by the State Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act;

Provided that such proceedings shall, as far as may be, be continued and disposed of, from the stage these were immediately before the commencement of this Act, in accordance with the procedure, specified by or under this Act and the cases pending before the Pepsu Land Commission immediately before the date of commencement of this Act shall stand transferred to the Collector of the district concerned for disposal.

Provided further that nothing in this section shall affect the determination and utilisation of the surplus area, other than the surplus area referred to above, in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

(ii) the previous operation of the said enactments or anything duly done or suffered thereunder:

(iii) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the said enactments, in so far as such right, privilege, obligation or liability is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and any proceedings or remedy in respect of such right privilege, obligation, or liability may be instituted, continued or enforced as if this Act had not been passed:

Provided that such proceeding or remedy shall, as far as may be, instituted, continued or enforced in accordance with the procedure specified by or under this Act."

A bare perusal of the proviso to section 28 makes it clear that the proceedings pending for determination of the surplus area under the 1953 Act have to be decided in accordance with the New Act after 24.3.1973. In this situation, the Collector had to allow Jagjit Singh''s petition and grant him opportunity to select permissible area for his two adult sons. He had not done so and has decided the case in accordance with the provisions of the 1953 Act which is clearly illegal.

In support of his second ground, Mr. Sahni has contended that at the time of the commencement of the New Act, i.e. 24.3.1973, the land of the petitioners which was declared as surplus, was in possession of the petitioners. The same position prevails even till today. Raghbir Singh and Randhir Singh sons of Jagjit Singh, petitioner were both major at the time of the commencement of the Act. Therefore, Jagjit Singh, petitioner, was entitled to select permissible area for both of his sons. In support of this contention, he has relied upon a recent Full Bench decision of this Court in Ranjit Ram v. The Financial Commissioner, etc., 1981 P.L.J. 259, wherein it has been held that a landowner whose lands have been declared surplus under the 1953 Act and who has been divested of ownership of the surplus area before the enforcement of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, is entitled to select permissible area for his family and for each of his adult sons in view of the provisions of Section 4 read with Section 5(1) of the New Act.

Admittedly, the petitioners had not been divested of the ownership or possession of land in dispute. The case of the petitioners is clearly covered by the ratio of Ranjit Ram''s case (supra).

For the above mentioned reasons, I allow this petition and set aside the order Annexure P.1 and the notice issued to the petitioners under section 9(1) of the New Act, and direct the authorities to decide the case in accordance with the New Act and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. No costs.