UJAGAR SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 56 · Decided: 25-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UJAGAR SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
JULY 25, 1996 
B 
(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 redetennina-
tion 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 prefen·ed 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 
c 
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 
E 
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 
58 
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. H

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