Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner, as an adopted son whose title related back to the date of adoption, was a person interested entitled to notice and hearing in surplus-area proceedings, and whether the Collector could refuse review of the earlier order passed without hearing him.
Analysis: Under custom, a valid adoption divests the widow of title and vests ownership in the adopted son from the date of adoption. On that basis, the petitioner was a person whose rights were directly affected by the surplus-area determination. The requirement in Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956, that persons concerned be given an opportunity of hearing was not confined to names appearing in Form D or in the revenue records. The earlier decision relied upon only dispensed with an enquiry beyond the available records for identifying persons to be noticed at the initial stage; it did not exclude a later hearing where a genuinely interested person came forward and had not been heard.
Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to be heard, and the Collector ought to have entertained the review and decided the surplus-area matter on merits after giving him a full opportunity of hearing.