POHLA SINGH @ POHLA RAM (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 360 · Decided: 05-05-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
POHLA SINGH @ POHLA RAM (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
B 
c 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
MAY 5, 2004 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU, CJ. AND G.P. MATHUR, J.] 
Tenancy and Land Laws: 
Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955: 
Section 51-A (inserted by Act No. 11 of 1968)-Lands granted for 
gallantry-Exemption from being taken into account for computing surplus 
area-Applicability of-Held: The specific land which had been granted 
for gallantry must be in possession of the person concerned for application 
D of S. 51-A-Hence, exemption in respect of land allotted under Displaced 
Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 is not available 
under S. 51-A. 
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: 
E 
Objects of-Explained. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
F 
Article 142-Relief-Petitioner did not challenge a part of the order 
of a Single Judge of the High Court by filing any Letters Patent Appeal-
However, Supreme Court took the view that the order of the Single Judge 
was not proper-Held: To avoid any scope for farther litigation and to do 
complete justice between the parties, the said part of the order set aside. 
G 
Article 226-Petitioners filed a writ petition for recalling the order 
passed in an earlier writ petition in which they were not impleaded as 
parties-Decision in earlier writ petition adversely affected the interest of 
the petitioners-Maintainability of-Held: In such circumstances, second 
writ petition was maintainable-High Court also rightly allowed the 
H second writ petition. 
360 
POHLA SINGH v. STATE 
361 
Words & Phrases: 
A 
"Compensation "-Meaning. of 
The father of respondent No. 4 had been allotted land by way of 
a military grant in Sind (Pakistan). On partition of the country he B 
migrated to India and was given land under the Displaced Persons 
(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. However, under the 
Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 a certain area of 
the said land was declared as surplus by the Collector. Under 
the Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme the land declared as surplus C 
was allotted to the appellants. The compensation amount with 
regard to the surplus land was deposited by the appellants and was 
received by respondent No. 4. After a long time, respondent No. 4 filed 
a revision petition against the Collector's order before the Financial 
Commissioner (Revenue), which was dismissed on the grounds of 
limitation. 
D 
Thereafter, the Pepsu Act was amended by Act No. 11 of 1968 
whereby Section 51-A was introduced therein, by which land allotted 
for gallantry was exempted from being taken' into account in computing 
surplus area unde.r the Pepsu Act. Thereupon, respondent No. 4 filed E 
a writ petition challenging the order of the Financial Commissioner as 
well as the order of the Collector. The High Court, relying on Section 
51-A, allowed the writ petition. Since the appellants were not impleaded 
as parties to tlie ~aid writ petition, they filed a writ petition before the 
High Court claiming several reliefs including a writ of mandamus F 
directing the respondents not to dispossess them from the land allotted 
to them. The High Court allowed this second writ petition and further 
held that the appellants were not bound by the decision rendered in 
the earlier writ petition. 
Respondent No. 4 preferred a Letters Patent Appeal against the G 
aforesaid decision, which was allowed. The High Court further held 
that respondent No. 4 was entitled to the protection available under 
Section 51-A of the Pepsu Act and consequently the declaration of 
surplus area was wrong and its allotment to the appellants was illegal. 
Hence the appeal. 
H 
362 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
On behalf of respondent No. 4, it was contended that once the 
order of a Single Judge of the High Court, having not been challenged 
by the appellants by preferring an appeal, became final, it was not open 
to another Single Judge to entertain another writ petition at the 
instance of the appellants and to make a declaration that the appellants 
B were not bound by the decision rendered in the earlier writ petition 
filed by respondent No. 4 and also that the appellants could not be 
dispossessed from the land in dispute in compliance thereof. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
C 
HELD: I. Section 51-A of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural 
Lands Act, 1955 can come into operation only ifthe specific land which 
had been granted for gallantry is in po

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.