9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether land owners owning land in both the States of Punjab and Haryana can claim to retain the permissible area in each State separately after a specific date. 2. Whether an order declaring the area to be surplus, passed prior to a certain date but not implemented, would continue to have effect after that date. Analysis: 1. The case involved a displaced person, Balwant Singh, who owned land in both Punjab and Haryana. A dispute arose regarding the surplus area declared on his land by the Special Collector under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1930. The question was whether he could retain permissible area separately in each state post the re-organization of Punjab in 1966. The High Court ruled against the landowner's claim for separate allotments in each state, and the matter was appealed to a full bench. The full bench concluded that the order declaring surplus land before 1966 would remain valid even if not implemented, and landowners were not entitled to separate allotments in the newly created states. 2. Balwant Singh argued that he should be entitled to 50 acres in each state, Punjab and Haryana, based on the division of his land post-reorganization. However, the court held that the order declaring surplus land, which had not been implemented, would still be effective. The court emphasized that the government had the right to utilize surplus land for resettlement purposes without any time limit. The Re-organization Act provisions ensured that orders passed before 1966 would be implemented despite the state division. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that allowing separate allotments in each state would create anomalies and go against the purpose of the Act to protect tenant rights and facilitate resettlement. 3. The legal analysis focused on the interpretation of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1930, and the implications of the Punjab Re-Organization Act, 1966, on land ownership rights post-reorganization. The court clarified that the government's right to utilize surplus land for resettlement purposes was paramount, and landowners could not claim separate allotments in each state. The judgment emphasized the continuity of orders passed before the re-organization date and upheld the validity of such orders even if not immediately implemented. The decision aimed to maintain consistency and prevent unfair advantages for certain landowners based on the state division.
|
