Labh Singh vs The State of Punjab and Others

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This writ petition is filed challenging the determination of the surplus land under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972.

The petitioner''s case is that his father Bishan Singh executed a will on September 25, 1962, bequeathing his property to his grand son, Sarwan Singh and Bishan Singh died in the year 1963 and after his death Sarwan Singh inherited the property left behind by Bishan Singh under the will. The property was also mutated in favour of Sarwan Singh on November 29, 1964. It is further case of the petitioner Labh Singh that his uncle Sant Singh died issueless during 1960-61. Prior to his death he executed a will bequeathing his property to Labh Singh. He also purchased some land. His wife Niranjan Kaur purchased some land on March 10, 1972, in her own name. While determining the surplus area of the petitioner, the authorities clubbed the holdings of the petitioner Labh Singh, his son Sarwan Singh and wife Niranjan Kaur treating his son as minor and allowed only one standard holding. According to the petitioner, his son Sarwan Singh was a major on the appointed day, i.e. January 24, 1971, and, therefore, he is entitled to separate holding in his own right. According to the respondents, Sarwan Singh was a minor on the appointed day, i.e. on January 24, 1971, and, therefore, the authorities rightly included the land held by him in the holding of the family consisting of the petitioner his wife and minor son.

The only point that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether Sarwan Singh was a major on the appointed day, i.e., January 24, 1971.

There cannot be any dispute that it is for the petitioner to prove by cogent evidence that his son was a major and, therefore, he was entitled to a separate holding in his own right. Except that ipso Dixit of the petitioner Labh Singh before the Collector that his son was aged about 20 years, there is nothing on record to show the age of the son of the petitioner. He did not file any birth and School admission record and even an electoral roll. In the absence of any evidence, it is difficult to hod that Sarwan Singh was a major on the appointed day, i.e. January 24, 1971.

The learned Counsel placing reliance on the decision of the Full Bench in Ranjit Ram v. Financial Commissioner (1981) 83 P.L.R. 499 (F.B.) argued that the landlord is entitled to select the permissible area for his family and son. The decision of the Full Bench does not apply to the facts of this case. That decision is applicable where land has been declared as surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. It has been held by the Full Bench as follows:-

That a land-owner whose land has been declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, or under the Pepsu Tenancy Agricultural Land Act, 1955, who has not been divested of the surroundings of the surplus area before the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, is entitled to select the permissible area for his family and each of his adult sons in view of the provisions of Section 4 read with Section 5 (1) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act."

In the present case, there is no question of declaration of the surplus area under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, or under the Pepsu Tenancy Agricultural Land Act, 1955. The proceedings have been initiated only under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1973. Therefore, the decision of the Full Bench in Ranjit Ram v. Financial Commissioner Revenue Punjab (1981) 83 P.L.R. 492 (F.B.) has no application to the facts of the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that Rules 8, 9 and 10 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1973, are ultra vires being beyond rule making power of the State. The said rules are held to be intra vires by a Division Bench of this Court in Surakshat Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others,

It is pertinent to note that the surplus land has been allotted to the tenants and physical possession was also given to them even before filing of the writ petition and thus the land has been utilised by the State Government before filing of the Writ Petition.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

The result is, the petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.