Harbans Singh, J. - (1.) SOME of the area of the petitioner, Munshi Singh, was declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as the Act). Before that area could be utilised, consolidation proceedings took place in the village, and in lieu of the entire area held by the petitioner, land was re -allotted to him. The authorities concerned carved out an area out of it. The petitioner's grievance, inter alia, as contained in paragraph 9 of the petition was that after the consolidation proceedings, the petitioner was not asked to reserve or declare his area which he wanted to keep and that the land which now the petitioner wants to keep after consolidation proceedings is being declared as surplus. Another point urged was that after the consolidation proceedings, it was impossible to find out the area which was given in lieu of the original khasra numbers declared surplus. Paragraph 7 of the return filed was to the following effect: After repartition separate blocks were carved out of the land which was declared surplus as stated against para 10 below. With regard to paragraph 9 of the petition, it was stated as follows: The area of the petitioner had already been declared surplus on 22nd November, 1959 The land which was given in lieu of land declared surplus is being utilised for the resettlement of tenants." As it was not clear whether separate blocks after repartition, as alleged in paragraph 7 of the return, were, in fact, carved out by the consolidation department or not, I asked for clarification which has not been given in a proper form but is contained in a letter addressed by the Collector concerned to the Under -Secretary to Government Punjab, Revenue Department. Paragraph 5 of this letter, however, makes it clear that during the consolidation operations, the consolidation department did not carve out separate blocks for the reserve and surplus area and it was the Circle Revenue Officer who carved out separate blocks of surplus area out of the holdings of the petitioner "with the help of consolidation records on 12th of December, 1961. ***(list 'A' attached) and allotted it to the resettles. Under section 24 -A(ii) of the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953, the Circle Revenue Officer***is competent to separate the surplus area out of the land obtained by the petitioner after consolidation operations. List 'C shows the area held by the petitioner.
(2.) FROM the above, two things are clear (1) that the carving out was done by the revenue authorities after consolidation block or blocks had been allotted to the petitioner in lieu of his entire land including the reserve and the surplus area, and (2) that it is not the position of the department that this carving out was done after any notice to the petitioner or after he was given an opportunity of being heard. Section 24 -A of the Act deals with two eventualities. Sub -section (1) of this section deals with a case where more than one land -owners have joint lands and it is desired to separate the share of one of the land -owners, some of whose area has been or is to be declared as surplus. In such a case the competent officer may, "after summary enquiry and affording to the persons interested in such land an opportunity of being heard, separate his share of such land or part thereof in the land owned by him jointly with other land -owners." Sub -section (2) is to the following effect: - Where, after the declaration of the surplus area of any person and before the utilisation thereof, his land has been subjected to the process of consolidation, the officers referred to in sub -section (1) shall be competent to separate the surplus area of such person out of the area of land obtained by him after consolidation.
(3.) It is sub -section (2) which is relevant to the present case. Here also, the land allotted to the landowner after consolidation is joint, representing the land granted in lieu of the area which the land owner is entitled to retain (reserve area) and the land which the Government is entitled to utilize as surplus area. Although sub section (2) does not specifically mention as to the procedure to be followed in this case, it is obvious that the procedure must be the same as is envisaged in sub -section (1) of section 24 -A. In this respect reference may be made to section 5 -B of the Act. Under sub -section (1) of section 5 -B a land -owner can select his permissible area and intimate the selection to the prescribed authority within the period specified in section 5 -A. Under sub -section (2) of section 5 -B if he fails to select his permissible area in accordance with sub -section (1), the prescribed authority may select the parcel or parcels of land which such person is entitled to retain under the provisions of this Act provided that the prescribed authority shall not make the selection without giving the land -owner concerned an opportunity of being heard. Thus, even where there is no consolidation and the land -owner has failed to exercise his right of selection and the selection is made by the Collector himself, the Collector is bound to give an opportunity to the land -owner to be heard before he makes such a selection. A fortiori, therefore, if such a selection is to be made after the consolidation, the rules of natural justice demand that the same procedure should be followed. As already indicated, this is also obvious from the fact that while detailed procedure is prescribed in sub -section (1) of section 24 -A, the procedure is not detailed in sub -section (2) of section 24 -A, and obviously the intention of the legislature is that the same procedure, as is prescribed in sub -section (1), should also be followed in a case covered by sub -section (2). There being no suggestion on behalf of the department that any notice was given, the carving out of a block by the authorities concerned out of the consolidated block or blocks allotted to the petitioner after consolidation is ultra vires.;