Surjit Kaur and others. vs Collector, Agrarian, Bhatinda and others .

D.S. Tewatia, J. (Oral)

Petitioners Surjit Kaur, Tej Kaur and Balwant Kaur, daughters of Mohinder Singh (Tej Kaur and Balwant Kaur being minorsthrough their mother) have merely sought through this writ petition, compliance of the provisions of section 9(1) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'') before taking possession of the land in their possession which was transferred to them by virtue of decree dated 341970 and which was declared surplus in the hands of their father Mohinder Singh.

Section 9 of the Act is in the following terms :

"9. Power to take possession of surplus area. (1) The Collector may, by an order in writing,after an area has become surplus under the Punjab law or the Pepsu law or becomes surplus under this Act, direct the landowner or tenant or any other person in possession of such area to deliver possession thereof, within ten days of the service of the order on him, to such person as may be specified in the order. ......... ."

The perusal of section 9(1) of the Act shows that before taking possession of the surplus land, a notice is to go to the persons who are in possession, who could raise objections, if any, to the taking of possession. It is their case that no notice had been issued to them and the order was made by the Collector under section 8 of the Act to take immediate possession of the land.

In the written statement, it has not been denied that the notice as required under section 9(1) of the Act had not been sent. The case of the respondent is that the action is being taken under section 8 of the Act.

In view of the clear provisions of section 9(1) of the Act, possession cannot be taken without first issuing notices to the persons in possession of the land. Hence the action of the respondents to take immediate possession, without compliance of the provisions of section 9(1) of the Act regarding notices is bad in law and illegal and, thus orders dated April 20, 1960 (Annexure P1) and dated April 19, 1974 (Annexure P3) are quashed and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to proceed in accordance with law.

No order as to costs.