Mukand Singh vs State of Punjab

D.S. Tewatia, J. (Oral)

Mukand Singh landowner''s surplus area case was decided by order dated 2nd August, 1960. Thereafter, consolidation of holdings took place in the village. Mukand Singh filed the present petition alleging that in view of the provisions of section 24A(2) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, he was entitled to have a fresh determination of the surplus area and fresh reservation. During the pendency of this petition, Mukand Singh died leaving behind widow Chint Kaur, five sons namely, Harjap Singh, Phelel Singh, Malkiat Singh, Jagjit Singh and Jagdev Singh and three daughters Smt. Malkiat Kaur, Smt. Surjit Kaur and Smt. Baljeet Kaur. The aforementioned heirs were brought on record as legal representatives of Mukand Singh after notice to the respondentState and with the consent of the respondentState.

The petitioner has averred in the petition that he continued in possession of the entire area. Reply to that from the State was evasive in that the plea taken was `denied for want of knowledge.'' The Court while admitting the petition stayed dispossession of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ranjit Ram v. The Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 1981 PLJ 259, has asserted that in view of the fact that the surplus area in question remained unutilized till today and original landowner Mukand Singh having died, the surplus area case shall have to be determined afresh in terms of section 5 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Reforms Act).

For the application of ratio of the Full Bench decision in Ranjit Ram''s case (supra) the fact that must exist is that the land had not been utilised till the enforcement of the Reforms Act and the death of the original landowner.

In the present case, there is no doubt about the fact that the land had not been utilised till today. As already observed, the dispossession of the petitioner had been stayed by this Court. There is also no doubt about the fact that the original landowner Mukand Singh had died, the fact which is made evident by the circumstance of bringing on record his legal representatives without objection from the respondentState after notice to it.

For the reasons aforementioned, the writ petition is allowed and the Collector of District Ferozepur is directed to redecide the surplus area case in terms of Reforms Act and in the light of the ratio of Ranjit Ram''s case (supra) after notice to all the aforementioned heirs of Mukand Singh.

No order as to costs.