In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... C.W.P. No.2783 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:6.7.2009 Harchand Singh and others .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Poonam Sambhar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H.S. Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. During the course of hearing the primary grievance raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I) in his order dated 14.2.2008 (Annexure-P.4) after concession had been made on behalf of the other side added the line; that the petitioners shall not be dispossessed except in due process of law. It is submitted that the plea that was raised by the petitioners was that they had already been allotted the land i.e. the land which had been declared surplus and that their interest should not be adversely affected by subsequent proceedings. The said request it is submitted was conceded by the other side. Accordingly, the revision C.W.P. No.2783 of 2009 [2] petition was disposed of. It was directed that while finalizing the surplus area, the Collector (Agrarian) shall keep in mind the rights of the petitioners, who had already been allotted land and which is in their possession, shall be protected and they shall not be dispossessed except with due process of law. The fact that the line regarding dispossession of the petitioners except in due process of law having been recorded in the order dated 14.2.2008 (Annexure-P.4) according to the learned counsel for the State is quite innocuous and in fact protects the rights of the petitioners, inasmuch as, in case they are to be dispossessed in consequence of certain adjustments or re-allotments that may be made they would be dispossessed only in accordance with law. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that no proceedings for dispossessing the petitioners have been initiated at this stage. The learned Financial Commissioner in his order dated 14.2.2008 (Annexure-P.4) has directed that the Collector (Agrarian) shall keep in mind that the rights of the petitioners who had been allotted the land and which was under their possession shall be protected. Therefore, the intent and tenor of the order appears to be that the rights of the petitioners are to be protected, however, in case certain adjustments or re-allotments are to be made and they are required to be dispossessed, their dispossession shall be done only in accordance with law. In any case, this aspect need not be gone into at this stage as no steps are being taken by the respondents to dispossess the petitioners from the land which has already been allotted to them. Therefore, the writ petition is premature and in case the petitioners are sought to be dispossessed from the land which has been C.W.P. No.2783 of 2009 [3] allotted to them, they may raise their plea with regard to the addition of the said line at that stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as premature. July 6, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:No