Rur Singh and Others vs The Collector Agrarian and Another

I.S. Tiwana, J.—An area measuring 13.25 Standard acres was declared as surplus in the hands of Hari Singh predecesssors-in-interest of the Petitioner under the provision of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (her-in-after referred to as the act) vide order dated February 28, 1901, passed by the Collector, Bhatinda. Before this could be utilised under the provisions of the act or the scheme framed thereunder, consolidation proceedings were started in the village in the year 1967-68. According to the Petitioners they still continue to be in possession of the said area. Now the collector Agrarian, Mansa, has addressed a Communication (Annexure P. 1) to Petitioner No. 1 directing him to deliver possession of land specified therein to the Halqa Patwari. It is mentioned in this communication that vide order dated February 28, 1971 passed u/s 32-mm(2), the post consolidation Khasra numbers mentioned therein have been declared as surplus area. According to the Petitioners no notice of any sort was given to them prior to the passing of this order dated February 28, 1971 and the alleged proceedings u/s 32-mm(2) were taken behind their back. The Petitioners impugn this direction contained in Annexure P. 1 through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Respondent authorities have not chosen to file any return to this petition and thereby failed to controvert the allegation made therein. In this situation 1 have to accept the factual allegations as made in the petition.

As no proceedings have been taken by the authorities for the separation of the surplus area u/s 13 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, there is no justification with the Respondents to take possession of the land which has been specified in Annexure P. 1. Even if some proceedings have been taken in that regard, the same are, on the face of it void or non-est for the reason that no notice was served on the Petitioner prior to the initiation of these proceedings nor as per their allegation, were they associated with those proceedings. In this view of the matter Annexure P. 1 becomes unsustainable.

In the light of the discussion above, I quash Annexure P 1 and allow the petition to that extent. The Respondent authorities would, however, be at liberty to take possession of the land declared surplus vide order dated February 28, 1961 in accordance with law.