Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
UJAGAR SINGH & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/07/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (7) 446 1996 SCALE (5)695
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Substitution allowed.
This appeal by special leave arises against the order
of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court
made on 20.9.1978 in LPA No.404/75 confirming the order of
the learned single Judge dated May 8, 1975 setting aside the
order of taking over possession of the surplus land dated
July 20, 1961 and directing redetermination of the surplus
land. The admitted facts are that the Collector exercising
the power under PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
1955 determined surplus land of the respondents at 18.82
standard acres by proceedings dated May 28, 1960. The order
was not challenged by filing the appeal. Notice of surrender
was given on June 3, 1961 calling upon the respondents to
deliver possession of the aforesaid surplus land within ten
days from the date of the receipt or the notice. Admittedly,
the possession of 18.82 standard acres of land was taken by
the State officials from Inder Singh who had acknowledged
taking over possession on July 12, 1961.
Subsequently, it would appear by consolidation
proceedings that had taken place in the year 1961-62, it was
found that Inder Singh was having less extent of land than
the prescribed standard acres under the Act. Consequently,
when he filed an application before the authorities, the
Commissioner as well as the revisional authorities negatived
the claim resulting in filing of the writ petition. As
stated earlier, the learned single Judge and the Division
Bench of the High Court have set aside the Government order
on the ground that Inder Singh was found having less land
than the prescribed standard acres under the Act as was
determined in the consolidation proceedings. Therefore, the
surplus land was required to be redetermined and restituted.
The question is: whether the view taken by the High
Court is correct in law? When the standard acres which Inder
Singh was entitled to retain was determined and surplus land
of an extent of 18.82 standard acres was determined by order
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
dated May 28, 1960. That order having been allowed to became
final. would it be open to Inder Singh or any person
claiming title through him to seek redetermination. When
they had not challenged the order and subsequently in the
consolidation proceedings he was found to hold less extent
than the prescribed standard holding, are they entitled to
redetermination? We are of the considered view that it is
impermissible. It would be open to Inder Singh or any person
claiming title under him to have challenged the correctness
of determinating surplus land by filing appeal before the
appropriate forum. Admittedly, no steps had been taken. On
the other hand, the order was allowed to become final and
possession of the surplus land of 18.82 standard acres was
taken over as admitted by Inder Singh by the proceedings
July 12, 1961. The land was simultaneously redistributed to
the landless persons as per the scheme of the Government who
are the appellants before this Court. Having allowed that
order dated May 28, 1960 and the proceedings of delivery
dated July 12, 1961 to become final, it would not be open to
either Inder Singh or anybody on his behalf to claim
redetermination. The view of the High Court is clearly
illegal.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The writ petition
stands dismissed. But, in the circumstances, without costs.