LAJPAT RAJ AND OTHERS versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

LAJPAT RAJ AND OTHERS versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Where a landowner has selected his permissible area under Section 5-B(1) by intimation in Form E, the prescribed authority has no power to vary such selection. The Collector's order varying the selection was without jurisdiction and a nullity.

Parties
Appellants: Lajpat Raj and Others; Respondents: State of Punjab and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 April 1981
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal Against Division Bench Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Reservation and Selection Under Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, Rights of Landowner to Select Permissible Area, Jurisdiction of Collector
Property Law Land Tenure Reservation and Selection Under Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act Rights of Landowner to Select Permissible Area Jurisdiction of Collector

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lajpat Raj and Others

Appellants

State of Punjab and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal Against Division Bench Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether intimation by landlord in Form E amounts to selection of permissible area under Section 5-B(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act
  2. 2 Whether the prescribed authority has power to vary the area selected by a landowner under Section 5-B
  3. 3 Distinction between 'reservation' and 'selection' under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

Where a landowner has selected his permissible area under Section 5-B(1) by intimation in Form E, the prescribed authority has no power to vary such selection. The Collector's order varying the selection was without jurisdiction and a nullity.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of Special Collector dated March 30, 1962 quashed
  • Collector directed to declare surplus area of respondent No.3 after excluding the area selected by him as permissible area