Dona Ram v. State Of Punjab
-1-
!
" #$%$ &'
() )((*
+
,
-) , .%) ,
,
))), ,
+'
/0 +) , + ,0
+ ,01 203 !
" #$$%&$$' ( )
*!
!,,$ $* !!
!,,$ $$ +$ !,,* -. /* /0 /1 #23 4 2 5 # # 2
5!,'$-7!,'$83 # $ " (## 9: " ;
< 26 "!,1*-7!,1*83
$% +% !,%' =*
# 4 - > *3 # * " # > * *+ +1 !,%* ) 52
# > *7#8*!
+!
!,%$ 4 ##2# $% +% !,%'
-2- " 8 # ## # #
$% +% !,%'
"## 4 2(2
# 2 " #4 # 2 # # !,'$ " # ## 4 4 +% !,%'# 2 / / # # 2 .# 6 6 4 "#
+% !,%'
2 #4/
!"
#
$
%
&# '(()"
$*++,"))- . '
#/# ))#
00000
+
% %%
%
1#
2
2
!
2
% 2 +
4
)/
5
2
% 2 25
"
,
" 2
*,
2
2
6
(
#
*,
% 5 #
725
#?
-3- % "9 #(5- > $3 #2#
+% !,%' # 2 .# " 29 #( 5 #4/ +
5 5 2
# +
2
% !#
9$#:#$#&#.8!
. ".)";
<#
9 2 +
1 % )"!"
)/
6
2#
2
2
%%% :
# ##
"'"
!#
=
2
4
%% * ,
2
1 % + )"!"
)/
72 %
5 5
%#
% %."
'
@ #2 ##44!, +'
!,%%# # # 4 # 2 # =
@*+ +1 !,%*4 # # # 4 # *!
+!
!,%$ # 4 2 5 " ##4 # , ) # 4 5 2 # # ( 5 24 2 # # # 4 4 2 (
-4- 2 " ## 4 # 4#2 # ) 2 24 2# !+ " #2 # +!
+$ !,%' 2 ## 44#
+% !,%'
#2# # 2 2 !!
A ##
# @ !$ A five-judge Bench of Supreme Court in Ujjagar Singh (dead) by LRs vs. Collector, Bhathinda and another, (1996) 5 SCC 14 has considered scope of Pepsu Act vis-à-vis 1972 Act. The Court has held that as per Section 32-E and 32-F of Pepsu Act, land which has been declared as surplus shall be deemed to be surplus when State Government takes over possession of the land. If possession of any surplus area of landowner has not been taken by or on behalf of the State Government, it shall not be deemed that such surplus area has been acquired and title of the land owner has been extinguished. The relevant extracts of the judgment are reproduced as below : "3. Section 3 of the Pepsu Act fixed the permissible limit for holding the land at thirty standard acres.
Sub-section (2) of Section 3 provided the procedure for computing the permissible limit under sub-section (1) of Section 3. In view of Section 5 every landowner owning land exceeding thirty standard acres was entitled to select for personal cultivation from the land held by him as a landowner which was to be reserved for his personal cultivation.
-5cultivation of the landowner concerned under Section 5 aforesaid. Section 32-E which is relevant provided:
"32-E. Vesting of surplus area in the State Government.
Provided that, for the purposes of clause (a), where any land falling within the surplus area is mortgaged with possession, only the mortgage rights shall vest in the State Government."
Section 32-F enabled the Collector to take possession of the surplus area so declared:
"32-F. Power to take possession of surplus area.-(1) The Collector may by order in writing at any time after the date on which the final statement in respect of a landowner or tenant is published in the Official Gazette, direct the
-6landowner or the tenant or any other person in possession thereof within ten days of the service of the order on him to such person as may be specified in the order.
(2) If the landowner or the tenant or any other person in possession of the surplus area refuses or fails without reasonable cause to comply with the order made under subsection (1), the Collector may take possession of the surplus area and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary."
On a plain reading of clause (a) of Section 32-E aforesaid it appears that in case any surplus area of the landowner which is not included within the permissible limit of such landowner "such area shall, on the date on which possession thereof is taken by or on behalf of the State Government, be deemed to have been acquired" by the State Government for public purpose and all rights, title and interest of all persons in such land shall be extinguished and such rights, title and interest shall vest in the State Government free from encumbrances.
In other words, in view of the aforesaid statutory provision, only when the possession of the land which has been declared as surplus area is taken over by the State Government, then only it shall be deemed that such surplus area has been acquired by the State Government and all rights, title and interest of person concerned in such land are extinguished and vest in the State Government. As such if the possession of any surplus area of landowner has not been taken by or on behalf of the State Government, it shall not be deemed that such surplus area has been acquired and title of the landowner has been extinguished. 4.
The stand of the appellant is that in view of the admitted position that the possession of the land which had been declared surplus in the year 1961-62 under the Pepsu Act had never been taken till the Punjab Act came into force in the year 1973 and as the appellant continued in possession thereof throughout, the respondent-authorities or the State Government was not entitled to take possession of such surplus area after the coming into force of
-7the Punjab Act and the ceiling has to be determined afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Act. It appears that there is no dispute that when the Punjab Act came into force, the appellant had four adult sons and if the ceiling is fixed afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Act, the appellant had no surplus land."
13.
The Supreme Court while passing aforesaid order has noted various judgments including a full Bench judgment of this Court in Ranjit Ram vs. Financial Commissioner Revenue, AIR 1981 P&H 313. !0 " 4 2# @4 #4 !,1* ##
# / ( # !,'$ !1 ) 4
/ #2/ # 2 # #
4!,'$ !% )
# !,'$ ## 2# # # !'
" ##4 #2 $= !+ $+$0 4+ ,05
B & C&> B # C&>