C.W.P. No.3448 of 1985 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.3448 of 1985 Date of Decision.20.10.2011 Shri Raj Kumar son of Sh. Gian Chand and another .....Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab through the Secretary, Revenue Department, Punjab, Chandigarh and another .....Respondents Present: Mr. G.S. Bal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.C. Goyal, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J. 1. The legal heirs of the landlord, whose property had been declared as surplus under the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act are the petitioners before this Court challenging the orders passed by the competent authorities declaring the holding to be attracted to the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act. 2. The petitioners' main grievance is that the order passed by the Collector on 31.1.1985 has not taken note of the order passed by this Court in C.W.P. No.2484 of 1969 dated 08.02.1980. It is time to turn on the essential facts to consider the relevance of this judgment to the case undertaken by the Collector for determination of surplus. The petitioners' father Gian Chand had been declared to have property of 47 standard acres and 14 units of land as surplus by order of the said C.W.P. No.3448 of 1985 -2- Collector on 10.04.1961. There had been some objections at the instance of certain tenants about the property declared as surplus and the Collector his order declared 17 Acres and 8 ½ units of land as a permissible area of the tenants. Gian Chand complained that he had not been served with notice of the proceedings of the Collector and a person by name Roshan Lal, who was said to have had an authority to appear on his behalf. Gian Chand contended that he came to know about the proceedings of the Collector only on 09.09.1967 and he preferred an appeal before the Commissioner on 14.09.1967. The appeal was rejected and he had preferred a further appeal before the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner held that perhaps no notice had been served but he was the view that Gian Chand any way knew of the proceedings under the Act when one Prem Singh as a tenant under him filed a purchase application under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. Gian Chand had actually contested his application and on this basis, the Financial Commissioner held that Gian Chand must have known about the proceedings under the Act. He consequently dismissed the further revision filed before the Financial Commissioner. This the High Court held by order dated 08.02.1990 as not sufficient and Court held that it was the duty of the Collector to hear Gian Chand before deciding the issue of the surplus area. All the orders dated 10.04.1961, 07.02.1968 and 31.12.1968 passed by the Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner respectively were set aside and the matter was directed to be disposed of by the Collector afresh in accordance with law. 3. In the meanwhile even when the proceedings were pending C.W.P. No.3448 of 1985 -3- before this Court between the year 1969 to 1980, Gian Chand appears to have filed a fresh petition before the Collector giving statement of his holding and the Collector passed an order on 27.05.1976 holding that 10.0897 was to be treated as surplus under the new Act. Evidently the High Court was not apprised of the fact that Gian Chand himself had approached the Collector by a fresh statement and an order was passed in the year 1976. However, after this order was passed in the year 1976, during when the proceedings were pending before the High Court, the son and widow namely Raj Kumar and Leela Devi respectively filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jallandhar. They brought to the attention of the Commissioner at the time when the matter was taken up that there was an intervening order passed by the High Court on 08.02.1980 requiring the Collector to pass a fresh order. The Commissioner found that there was no reason to reappraise the determination already made and upheld the decision taken already on 27.05.1976. Since the proceedings were still pending adjudication before the Commissioner, the petitioners found that the succession that had opened on the death of father enabled them to seek for a redetermination and filed a fresh return on 10.08.1982 in Form A. The Commissioner rejected the application and held the area of 10.0987 standard acres still existed for utilization and hence, the proceedings initiated under Section 9(1) of the Land Reforms Act to utilize the surplus could be continued. Applications had been invited from the eligible persons for allotment, when the petitioner sought for a fresh determination to give them the entitlement of two units. The plea was rejected by the order of the Collector on 30.01.1985. C.W.P. No.3448 of 1985 -4- 4. The Government in its reply brings out also the fact that the Commissioner had actually disposed of the appeal filed against the order of determination of surplus made on 27.05.1976 when the previous writ petition was pending. This appeal was at the instance of the tenants, who claimed that they were entitled to the allotment and a fresh redetermination could not be done. 5. The whole matter boils down to this: A final determination of the Collector had not been made and the surplus area had not been utilized culminating in vesting the property in the State and handing over the property to the tenants. If between the order of this Court directing a fresh determination on 08.02.1980 and the year 1985, there was a requirement of fresh determination by the fact of death of the original landowner, it was essential that such redetermination ought to be undertaken under the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act. A Full Bench of this Court in Ranjit Ram Vs. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and others 1981 PLJ 259 held that a landowner whose land had been declared as surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 but who had not yet been divested of the ownership of surplus area before the enforcement of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 is entitled to select the permissible area of his family and for each of his adult sons. The Full Bench held that Collector was duty bound while passing an order under Section 7 of the Land Reforms Act to allow the permissible area from the adult son as well. In this case, before the property declared as surplus in the year 1961 was utilized by the State, there has been death of the owner and consequently in terms of Section 11(5) and (7) of the Punjab Land C.W.P. No.3448 of 1985 -5- Reforms Act, there has been inheritance by his wife and son and there would require to be a fresh redetermination. 6. The impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Collector for determination in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 20, 2011 Pankaj*