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.