UJAGAR SINGH AND ORS.

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JULY 25, 1996

(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 :

Land-Ceilin~Surplus land-Redetermination of--Respondelll's C Surplus land detennined-Detennination order attaining finality-Possession of surplus land taken over by Stat~Sinmltaneously land dist1ib11ted amongst landless persons as pei Goven1n1ent schenze--Subsequent/y in consolidation proceedings landowner found having less extent of land than the presc1ibed standard acres under tile Act-Landoivner filing OJJplication for redetennination of surplus /and-Rejection by Conunisioner as well as revisional D autho1i(J-Writ-High Court directing that swplus land was required to be redetennined and restilllted-Appeal prefened by landless persons who were distiibuted land as per scheme-Held order of detennination of surplus land having beconze final it 1vas not open to landowner or for anybody clain1ing on his behalf to claim redetemzination--View taken by High Court held E illegal.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2735 of 1981.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.9.78 of the Punjab & p Haryana High Court in LP.A. No. 404 of 1975.

S.M. Ashri for the Appellants.

Manoj Swarup, K.C. Gupta and AK. Goel for the Respondents.

G The following Order of the Court was delivered :

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 H No. 404175 confirming the order of the learned single Judge dated May 8, 56

UJAGARSJNGH v. STATE 57

1975 setting aside the order of taking over possession of the surplus land A 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 B given on July 3, 1961 calling upon the respondents to deliver possession of the aforesaid surplus land within ten days from the date of the receipt of 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 D 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 dated May 28, 1960. That order having been allowed F to become 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 considefed view that it is impermissible.

It would be open to Inder Singh or any person claiming title under him to G 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 lnder Singh by the proceedings July 12, 1961. The land was simultaneously H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A redistributed to the landless persons as per the scheme of the Government who are the appellants before this Conrt. 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.

B The appeal is accordingly allowed. The writ petition stands dismissed. But, in the circumstances, without costs.

T.N.A.

Appeal allowed.