IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.158 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision:13.7.2009 Ranbir Chaudhary and others ......Appellants Vs. The State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.Prem Nath Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Suvir Sehgal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondents No. 1, 3 and 4. Mr.Rameshwar Malik, Addl.A.G.Haryana, for respondent No.2. Mr.R.D.Bawa, Advocate, for respondent No.5. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellants. 2. Kanwar Vijay Singh was a big landowner and had land in erstwhile State of Punjab, part of which on reorganization came to Haryana. The appellants were the tenants on the land. Vide order dated 8.7.1963, the Special Collector, Punjab determined the surplus area of the landowners under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (old law). Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed CWP Nos.810 of 1965 and 986 of 1966 in this Court with the grievance that the tenants' permissible area had been wrongly included in landowners' surplus area. Vide order dated 26.3.1975, this Court remanded the matter to the Collector, who vide order dated 3.1.1984,determined some area as tenants' permissible area. This order was set aside by the Financial Commissioner on 28.9.1987. LPA No.158 of 2006 [2] However, on review vide order dated 9.5.1988, the order dated 3.1.1984 was upheld. Thereafter, Kashmira Singh and others filed CWP No. 8508 of 1993 against the order dated 9.5.1988 on the ground that the said persons were not heard. This Court vide order dated 25.10.1994 directed the matter to be decided afresh by the FC after giving an opportunity of hearing. The Financial Commissioner, after hearing the matter again, passed order dated 29.8.2000 directing the surplus area being determined again under the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (for short, “1972 Act”). The matter was remanded to Collector. Against the said order, review petition was dismissed. This led to filing a writ petition by the appellants whereon the impugned order was passed. 3. Grievance raised by the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that the order dated 3.1.1984 should have been maintained and that 5 standard acres and 2 units of land as tenants' permissible area should have been allowed. The coming into force of 1972 Act did not affect the proceedings under the 1953 Act under which the appellants had acquired rights to retain the tenants' permissible area. Under the 1972 Act, the parameter for determining the tenants' permissible area is different and to the detriment of the appellants. By applying 1972 Act, the family unit of the landowners get increased and without determining the issue that 1972 Act could apply, the Financial Commissioner has assumed applicability of the 1972 Act. The learned Single Judge held that 1972 Act was applicable as possession had not been taken by the State Government. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that 1972 Act could not be applied for re-determining the surplus area and there could be no LPA No.158 of 2006 [3] question of area declared as tenants' permissible area being taken possession of by the State Government, which is the basis of the observation of the learned Single Judge. 5. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents, the big landowners submits, that the determination of surplus area has to be done afresh under the new Act 1972, as held by learned Single Judge. 6. Thus, the question as to what extent the proceedings already taken are to be treated as final after coming into force of the 1972 Act, remains a question in issue to be decided, inter alia, in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ujjagar Singh Vs. The Collector Bhatinda and another 1996 PLJ 505 and Harnek Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner, Appeals, Punjab and others 2002 [1] PLJ 64. 7. Since under the impugned order, matter has been ordered to be remanded to the Collector, we are of the view that issue raised in the appeal can be first decided by the Collector without treating the observations as to applicability of the 1972 Act as final. The parties may appear before the Collector for further proceedings on 3.8.2009. The Collector will, thereafter, decide the matter within six months. 8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) July 13, 2009 JUDGE raghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter ........Yes/No LPA No.158 of 2006 [4] LPA No.158 of 2006 [5]