LAWS(P&H)-1967-3-27

KEHAR SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

Decided On March 23, 1967
KEHAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two points have been urged by Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, the counsel for the petitioner Kehar Singh, in this certiorari petition against the order of the Collector, Agrarian Reforms passed on 29th May, 1961 declaring an area of 17.42 standard acres as surplus. It may be mentioned that the order of the Collector was sought to be reviewed but the application was dismissed on 15th December, 1962. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal under sub-section (3) of section 32-D of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) and this was dismissed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, on 27th May, 1963. The revision petition filed by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner was likewise dismissed on 9th July, 1963.

(2.) Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged in the first instance that the land was owned by the petitioner and his two sons and in fact a partition had been effected of the joint Hindu family. The petitioner did not file a return of his holding as required by section 32-B of the Act and it was only after the draft statement had been prepared under section 32-D on the information gathered from other agencies that the Collector Agrarian Reforms, proceeded to determine the surplus area. As rightly pointed out by the authorities, a notice has to be sent only to the person who was shown to be the owner in the revenue records on 21st of August, 1956. It is not disputed that the petitioner alone was recorded as owner in the revenue entries and it was not incumbent to send notices to the sons of the petitioner. The petitioner himself did not choose to appear after he had been served and it was only at a late stage that the objection with regard to notice was taken. I do not think there is any force in the submission of the learned counsel that the sons of the petitioner should have been served with copies of the draft statement. The area in the ownership of the petitioner was 48.42 standard acres and 18.42 standard acres have rightly been carved out as surplus area after deducting the permissible area.

(3.) The next contention of Mr. Harbhagwan Singh is that the consolidation of holdings having taken place after the surplus area was declared fresh computation should be made in view of the reduced holding of the tak which has been awarded to the petitioner in repartition proceedings. My attention has been drawn to section 32-A of the Act, sub-section (1) of which says that :-