Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1861 (PNJ)

Ved Parkash v. State of Haryana

2011-10-13

K.KANNAN

body2011
JUDGMENT K. Kannan, J. CM No.15810 of 2010 in CWP No.1247 of 1986 1. CM is allowed. The applicants are directed to be added as parties on the basis of entries that they were also owners of the property, the succession having fallen to them during the course of proceedings. 2. Registry will carry out the amendment in the memo of parties. CM No.13912 of 2011 in CWP No.1248 of 1986 3. CM is allowed. The legal representatives of the 2nd petitioner are directed to be impleaded as party subject to all just exceptions. 4. The Registry shall carry out amendment in the memo of parties. The amended memo of parties is already available on record, the same having been filed by the counsel for the petitioners. CWP Nos.1247 and 1248 of 1986 5. In both the writ petitions, the issue is common of the manner of reckoning the surplus area and the claim for entitlement for exclusion of banjar qadim and the property which is reduced in consolidation proceedings. 6. The contention by the State for the point urged by the learned senior counsel for the respective petitioners is that the exclusion now sought for in the writ petitions was not taken up at all before the authorities under the Punjab Security of Lands Tenures Act of 1953 when the surplus area was determined. 7. In this case when the challenge to the proceedings culminating in declaration of surplus is made and when an amendment was brought and in support of the amendment seeking for exclusion, revenue entries are also relied upon to show that particular items of properties have been treated as banjar lands. The State could have very well contested the claim and contended that the properties were not banjar lands but they were also liable to be included in reckoning the total holding. On the other hand, the State has taken several opportunities from the year, 2007 for filing reply to the amended writ petition but has not filed a reply specifically. On the other hand, in the application for amendment, it is only contended that the revenue entries are matters of record, as if to suggest that the entries themselves were not challenged or not reliable. On the other hand, in the application for amendment, it is only contended that the revenue entries are matters of record, as if to suggest that the entries themselves were not challenged or not reliable. I will not, therefore, fetter jurisdiction of this Court to examine whether the petitioner could seek for an exclusion of the said properties from the total holding on the ground that they are banjar lands. 8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners relies on the decisions of this Court in Hazara Singh and others Versus The Collector,Ferozepore and others-1967 PLJ 286; Lall Singh and others Versus Shri Saroop Krishen, F. C. and others-1972 PLJ 445; and Dharam Singh (deceased) LRs. And others Versus Bhagwan Singh and others-2005(1) PLR 639 that held that banjar qadim lands are not “lands” for determining the land holdings in the hands of the landowner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Munshi Ram etc. Versus the Financial Commissioner, Haryana etc. -1979 PLJ 182 to hold that the banjar qadim does not fall within the purview of “land” under the Punjab Security on Land Tenures Act in terms of Section 2(8) and it should be excluded by computing the permissible area. The petitioners in CWP No.1247 of 1986 will, therefore, be entitled to an exclusion of the property of an extent of 2 standards acres and 10 ½ units on account of banjar qadim. A like extent of 2 standards and 10 ½ units will also be required to be excluded from the total holdings in CWP No.1248 of 1986 since the revenue entries are brought before Court to show that at the relevant time, the properties were banjar qadim. 9. In both the writ petitions, there is also an additional ground that the actual extent shall be required to be lessened to the extent that was reduced exclusion, namely, for the property in consolidation proceedings. In CWP No.1247 of 1986, it was to an extent of 6½ units. The consolidation was complete in the year 1956 but the determination itself was made only subsequently on 19.01.1960. Evidently, the property which was lessened through consolidation could not have been included in computation of the total area and the same would require to be excluded. In CWP No.1248 of 1986, it is stated that an extent of 5 units had been lessened. The said extent has also to be excluded. 10. Evidently, the property which was lessened through consolidation could not have been included in computation of the total area and the same would require to be excluded. In CWP No.1248 of 1986, it is stated that an extent of 5 units had been lessened. The said extent has also to be excluded. 10. Both the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The Collector is at liberty to re-determine the surplus area after excluding the property referred to as banjar qadim (5.5 standard acres) and the properties that have been lessened to the extent referred to above in consolidation proceedings viz. 2.5 standard acres, as brought through Annexure P-3. Petition allowed.