- (1.) Sampuran Singh is a landholder in two villages, namely, Satike and Dhanpura. The Collector, Agrarian Reforms, Mansa, district Bhatinda, by his order dated 17th April, 1961, (annexure 'A') declared under Section 32-D of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. 104.59 ordinary acres equivalent to 63.51 standard acres out of his holding as surplus area. The landowner moved the Collector for review of his order on the ground that he had not been served and as such there was no justification for proceeding ex parte against him in the matter. The Collector refused to review the order saying that the landowner had been served according to law and failed to appear on the due date. Thereupon the landowner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the Collector's order dated 17th April, 1961, declaring 63.51 standard acres of his land as surplus area on various grounds which need not be recapitulated in detail here. His learned counsel during his arguments solely contended that the impugned order of the Collector was bad in law since he was not given any opportunity to represent his case before the Collector when a good portion of his holding was declared as surplus area.
(2.) The written statement filed by the respondents shows that notice under Section 32-BB of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, and the draft statement prepared under Section 32D of the said Act were served on the petitioner according to law and, therefore, it was wrong to contend that he was not given any opportunity to show cause against the impugned order.
(3.) There is no doubt that the notice and the draft statement referred to above were not served personally on the petitioner. A copy of these was pasted on the outer door of his house. The learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that it was not due service. Rule 35 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1958, provides that save as otherwise provided in these rules, notices or orders under the Act shall be served in the manner provided in Section 90 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 . The relevant portion of Section 90 of the Punjab Tenancy Act runs as follows :- "90. (1) A summons issued by a Revenue Officer or Revenue Court shall, if practicable, be served (a) personally on the person to whom it is addressed, or failing him on (b) his recognised agent, or (c) an adult male member of his family who is residing with him. (2) If service cannot be so made, or if acceptance of service so made is refused the summons may be served by posting a copy thereof at the usual or last known place of residence of the person to whom it is addressed, or, if that person does not reside in the district in which the Revenue Officer is employed or the Revenue Court is held and the case to which the summons relates has reference to land in that district, then by posting a copy of the summons on some conspicuous place in or near the estate wherein the land is situate." The Collector could, therefore, accept the pasting of the notice and also of the draft statement on the outer door of the petitioner's house as valid service. The impugned order cannot, therefore, be said to have been passed without giving notice to the petitioner. The writ petition, consequently, fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.;