LPA No. 608 of 1997 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 608 of 1997 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.02.2010 State of Punjab and others ....Appellants. Versus Banta and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Ms. Rita Kohli, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the appellants. Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate for respondent No.1 to 6. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the order of the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition was allowed and the orders dated 12.12.1977 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, and order dated 8.5.1980 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab, were set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners who claimed to be tenants of respondent No.5 (Ranjit Singh) filed writ petition for questioning the orders passed by the revenue authorities whereby it was ordered that the issue pertaining to the land in excess of the permissible limit under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 be considered after serving an LPA No. 608 of 1997 2 intimation in form ‘F’ prescribed under the rules framed under the aforesaid Act. 3. Respondent No.5 was found to be in excess of 24 standard acres of land during the course of proceedings under the consolidation of holdings. It was the case of the petitioners that the surplus land as aforesaid was allotted to them as per Section 18 of the said Act. In 1974, the petitioners who claimed to be the tenants of respondent No.5, filed a suit for declaration that they are the owners in possession. The aforesaid suit was decreed. 4. Respondent No.5 filed an appeal under Section 24 of the aforesaid Act. The aforesaid appeal was decided by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division on 12.12.1977 directing that the case for determination of the surplus area should be heard afresh after serving intimation in form ‘F’. The aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision. The revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the order passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division was upheld by the Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab, vide order dated 8.5.1980. Aggreived thereby, the petitioners filed the writ petition. 5. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by observing that the revenue authorities have committed a grave error while arriving at the conclusion that intimation in Form 'F' had not been served on the landlord. It has also been observed by the learned Single Judge that respondent No.5 Ranjit Singh knew very well about the passing of the order by which his land was declared as surplus. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the LPA No. 608 of 1997 3 record. 7. Undisputedly, land of Ranjit Singh was declared surplus and thereafter, on 2.8.1960, Ranjit Singh was called upon to indicate the choice of the land which he wanted to retain out of the total land with him so that surplus land could be appropriated as per the provisions. Hence, it cannot be said that Ranjit Singh was not aware of the proceedings. 8. Thereafter, surplus land was taken and allotted on various dates. In 1974, the tenants also filed civil suit against Ranjit Singh, seeking declaration that they are owners in possession and sought injunction restraining Ranjit Singh and others from interfering with their possession. The aforesaid suits were also decreed. It also proves that Ranjit Singh had all the knowledge about the entire proceedings. In view of this, finding of the learned Single Judge that Ranjit Singh was well aware of the proceedings is correct and hence, remand of the case to decide afresh after issuing intimation in Form 'F' would not serve any purpose, calls for non interference. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 01.02.2010 sk..