BANTA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this writ for quashing the orders passed by the revenue authorities, whereby it was ordered that the issue pertaining to the land in excess of the permissible limit under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred as, the Act of 1953 ). be considered after serving an intimation in Form 'f' prescribed under the Rules framed under the said Act of 1953.

(2.) RESPONDENT 5 Ranjit Singh (since deceased represented by LRs) was the landowner of certain pieces of land situated in, two different villages. In the course of proceedings under the consolidation of holdings, it transpired that he held 24 standard acres land in excess of the ceiling. Thereupon, on 2. 8. 1960 such an order was passed by the Collector, Agrarian Reforms, functioning under the Act of 1953. Papers before me indicate that respondent 5 Ranjit Singh was called upon to indicate the choice of the land which he wanted to retain out of the total land with him; so that the surplus land could be appropriated as per the provisions. It is contended by the petitioners that the land in dispute was thus found surplus and thereupon it was allotted to them as per Section 18 of the Act of 1953. This allotment took place on various dates during 1969. Thereafter in 1974 there was an occasion when these tenants filed 2 civil suit against respondent 5 Ranjit Singh and others to seek a declaration that they are the owners in possession, and also sought consequential relief that Ranjit Singh and others should be restrained from interfering with the possession of these tenants/plaintiffs. These suits were decreed.

(3.) WHEN the petitioners learnt about that decision, they preferred a revision before the Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab. He observed that the service of intimation in Form 'f' under the said provision was a statutory requirement, and that the Commissioner had better ordered the service of such intimation. On this reasoning he found no substance in the revision, and dismissed it by order dated 8. 5. 1980.