The Punjab Land Reforms Act,1972
Section 28. Repeal and Saving
(1) The Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act,1953 and the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1955, in so far as these are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, are hereby repeated.
(2) The repeal of the enactments mention in sub-section (1), hereinafter referred to as the said enactments, shall not affect
(i) the proceedings for the determination of the surplus area pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, under either of the said enactments, which shall be continued and disposed of as if this Act had not been passed, and the surplus area so determined shall vest in and be utilised by the State Governmrnt in accordance with the provisions of the Act;
Provided that such proceedings shall, as far as may be, be continued and disposed of, from the stage these were immediately before the commencement of this Act, in accordance with the procedure specified by or under this Act, [and the cases pending before the Pepsu Land Commission immediately before the date of commencement of this Act shall transferred to the Collector of the district concerned for disposal].
Provided further that nothing in this section shall affect the determination and utilisation of surplus area, other than the surplus area referred to above, in accordance with the provisions of this act;
(ii) the previous operation of the said enactments or anything duly done or suffered thereunder.
(iii) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the said enactments, in so far as such right, privilege, obligation or liability is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and any proceeding or remedy in respect of such right, privilege, obligation or liability may be instituted, continued or enforced as if this Act had not been passed.
Provided that such proceedings or remedy shall, as far as may be, instituted continued or enforced in accordance with the procedure specified by or under this Act.
COMMENTS
Entitlement to select permissible area afresh ” a landowner who owns land more than the permissible are under the Act on its commencement would be entitled to select permissible area for himself as also for his adult sons as provided in Section 5(1) of the Act but while making such selection, the landowner shall not be entitled to include any area declared surplus under the Punjab Law, the Pepsu Law or this Act, as provided by Section 5(2). Sukhcharah Singh vs. State of Punjab,1993 PLJ 56
The Collector (Agrarian) was not justified in rejecting the application of Harinder Rai petitioner for giving the benefit of section 5 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act on the ground that his appeal having been dismissed by the Commissioner and the case having been taken up in pursuance of the remand order of the Commissioner and the case of Saroj Rani etc., Harinder Rai petitioner could not be permitted to raise the plea of adult son etc. However, in view of the law laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the judgement reported in 1984 PLJ 385 such a objection could be raised before the Financial Commissioner even if it had not been raised before the Collector. The Collector should have given an opportunity to Harinder Rai to lead evidence on this point. Moreover, as per judgement reported in 1983 PLJ 319, the case of Harinder Rai Petitioner could not have been decided under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act,1953 after the coming into force of the Punjab Land Reforms Act,1972 with effect from 24.3.1973. The surplus are had to be re-determined under the new Act. Besides, the surplus area having not been utilised prior to the coming into force of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, it had to be re-determined under the new Act. The utilisation made during t
he pendency of the
litigation would not in any way affect the interest of the petitioners. On this point, I am supported by the judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 1982 PLJ 223. After the coming into force of the new Act of 1972, the petitioner was entitled to reserve the land for his adult son and other members of his family, as per the law laid down by the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ranjit Ram;s case (1981 PLJ 259). The aforesaid judgement also lays down that where surplus are declared under the old Act had not been utilised before the coming into force of the Punjab Land Reforms Act,1972 it has to be re-determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1972. Under Section 5(1) of the Act of 1972, each son of a landowner who was adult on 24.1.1971 had to be allowed a separate unit of 7 hectares while determining the surplus area, if any. Harinder Rai Ahuja vs. The State and others,1989 PLJ 612
