Ram Ditta vs The Haryana State and Others

Prem Chand Jain, C.J.—This petition came up for motion hearing on January 20, 1986, when the Bench passed the following order:--

"Relying on Bhupinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, , it has been contended that a resettled tenant has no right of hearing or of appeal in the proceedings relating to the declaration of surplus area. We feel that this view needs reconsideration. A resettled tenant has acquired right on the surplus area and, as such, he would be a person interested in the result of the surplus proceedings. Even if he is not covered by Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, principles of natural justice would clothe him with a right to be heard. This decision, in our view, requires reconsideration. This petition is accordingly admitted and ordered to be placed before the learned Chief Justice for reference to a Full Bench."

It is in pursuance of the aforesaid order that the case has been placed for hearing before us.

Shri O. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, started his arguments on the point on which the case was admitted to hearing by a larger Bench, but after arguing for some time, he very fairly conceded that he was unable to advance arguments in the case any further as the point on which the petition had been admitted to hearing by a Full Bench did not arise, nor did he wish to argue on that point.

In this situation, we do not express any opinion on the point specifically referred to in the admitting order as the learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that he is unable to advance any arguments as no such point arises in this petition. Consequently, without going into the merits, we direct the office to post this petition for hearing before a learned single Judge for disposal on merits on the points that may arise for consideration.

Order accordingly.