Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)Babu Ram & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 15 February, 2008
The first judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner
is Babu Ram's case (supra). The facts of that case cannot be equated with
the facts of the present case. In that case, the land was declared surplus with
one Narinder Singh by the Collector. One Babu Ram made an application
to the Collector that he had purchased 77 kanals and 10 marlas of land from
Narinder Singh and the same being banjar should not have been declared
surplus with Narinder Singh and that he had not been afforded an
opportunity by the Collector who had declared the surplus area. That
application was rejected by the Collector and Babu Ram filed an appeal
before the Commissioner, who accepted the appeal and directed the
Collector to re-hear Babu Ram as to why the area purchased by him should
not be made a part of the area allowed to be retained by Narinder Singh as
LPA No. 260 of 2003 [9]
his permissible area. It was in those circumstances that it was held by the
Division Bench of this Court that as a result of the acceptance of that
appeal, the previous declaration of surplus area no more stands and the case
was to be re-opened. In the present case, it was not the contention of the
tenants that any such land had been included in the permissible area of the
landowner to which they were entitled. Their only contention was that their
permissible area as tenants be also determined. The case was remanded
back for determining their permissible area as tenants and not for re-
determining the surplus area of the landowner.
Surjit Kumar And Jaswinder Singh @ ... vs State Of Punjab on 8 March, 2007
There is no dispute about the fact that banjar land is not
included within the definition of land and is not to be taken into
consideration, while determining permissible area of the landowner.
Learned Single Judge called for the report of the Collector in order to elicit
the correct status of the land. It is incorporated in the judgment, which has
been challenged in these appeals, that the permissible area of landowner has
been carved out from the land comprised in village Jawaddi and at that time
LPA No. 260 of 2003 [12]
the landowner had been found in possession of 41 Standard Acres 7-1/2
units area. Admittedly, no area has been defined as banjar jadid or banjar
kadim in that village. That finding can not be challenged in these appeals.
So it cannot be held that any such banjar land was included while assessing
permissible area of the landowner. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Amar Surjit Singh's case (supra) held as under:-
The Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972
Section 24 in The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 [Entire Act]
1