TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1974 (9) TMI 128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts necessary for the decision of this petition are not seriously in dispute and may be stated thus. Land measuring 174 bighas 1 biswa situated in village Bhandor was originally owned by Choudhry Manohar Lal and after his death it was mutated in the name of his wife Maqtul Kaur respondent No. 4. In obedience to the wishes of Manohar Lal, his widow Maqtul Kaur adopted the petitioner as a son to her deceased husband through a registered adoption deed dated 27th July, 1952. Not realising that by this adoption the petitioner had become owner of the entire land of his adoptive father, Maqtul Kaur gifted 33 bighas of land to the petitioner out of the land situated in village Bhandor. At the tune of the adoption and this gift the petitioner was a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s passed on 4th December, 1959. It may be mentioned at this stage that at the time the proceedings were taken the petitioner was still a minor. 4. After the termination of the proceedings under the Act Ashok Kumar obtained possession of the land in execution of the decree obtained by him and subsequently he was allotted other land during consolidation proceedings in lieu of the land that he had inherited from his adoptive father Manohar Lal. On 27th July, 1966, the petitioner received a notice under Section 24-A (2) of the Act calling upon him to select his reserve area out of the land allotted to him in consolidation proceedings and it was then that the petitioner learnt for the first time that some area out of his inherited land had earl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed after hearing the party who was entitled to notice, it was not open to review subsequently at the instance of the petitioner and in support of this contention reliance was placed on the observations in Hardev Singh v. The State of Punjab 1971 P&H 263. As the relevant observations in Hardev Singh's case needed elucidation in the light of the facts of the present case, the petition was referred to a larger Bench and it is in this manner that the writ petition has come up before us for decision. 6. The principal and in fact the only argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that as after his adoption in 1952 he had become the lawful owner of the land left by his adoptive father Choudhry Manohar Lal and Maqtul Kaur had been div....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., manifest that notice under Rule 6 (2) has to be issued in the proceedings before the Circle Revenue Officer only to such persons whose names may be mentioned in form 'D' prepared by the Patwari or whose names may be shown in the relevant revenue records available to the Circle Revenue Officer as either vendees or donees or other transferees or tenants of the land which is proposed to be included in the surplus area of the original landowner." It was further ruled in the above case that the Act or the 1956 Rules do not envisage any investigation by the Circle Revenue Officer as to who would be the possible persons interested in the proceedings before him and that it would be a sufficient compliance of the rules if notice is is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cree in his favour in October, 1968 and had obtained possession on 15th April, 1964, his title to the property related back to the date of adoption and he consequently was a person interested in the proceedings for the declaration of surplus area. The argument to the contrary advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent is consequently not tenable. 10. The second aspect of the argument is equally without merit. No doubt, in Hardev Singh's case. 1971 P&h LJ 283 it was ruled that it was not necessary for the Circle Revenue Officer to make an investigation to find out as to who were the persons interested, but from these observations it does not follow that if subsequently a person interested came forward, he was not to be given a h....