466 0 CWP No12988of2009 1 IN THE HlGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND IARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No12988of2009 DateofDecisionl 7 0122010 NarainDass NarainGarg etitioner Vs SarupSnghand others 7cspondents r 0 CORAM HONBLE MRJUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA 0 I 964 9618 C9 I Present Mr RS Mittal Sr Advocatewith Mr Atul Gaur Advocate for the Z Mr PS Dhaliwal Advocate for no 1 1 Mr CS Brar DAG Punjabfor no2 to 5 r t RAJIVE BHALLA J Z The petitioner prays for issuanceof a writ in the nature of QO Certiorarifor the orderdated 5 20Ol passedby the Financial 7 Z Punjabier dated 133 003 passedby the Ll Collector AgrariaillRajpuraand orderdated 301 22003 passedbythe Divisional Cominissioner Patiala Division Patiala aild orders dated 153008 and 1692008 passedbytheFinancialCotnmissioiler Punjab Before proceedingto record Iny opinion it would be to set out lhegenesis of thepresentdispute The Collector Divisional Officer Civill Rajpuravide order daled 9 1 976 declared 96 Ighas10 Biswas of land Suresh Kumar 2014.04.04 16: 25 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 467 0 4 CWP No2988 of2009 2 1 in the haondsof lOesRajSlo Shadi Rain fatllerof t under thePunjabLand ReformsAct 19726hereinaerreferredto as the Act1Des Raj thisorderbyfllingan appealThe Commissioner PatialaDivision Patiala videorder dated41 978 theappeal and retnandedthecase to theCollector fot a ftesh decision The Col Iector AgrariaillRajpurapassedan order datcd 2581978 Des Rajsprayer for exclusionof the Iand r but his prayeorofor exclusiotl of land 34 bighas which 0 0 was sold by Des Raj Baldev SinghSardool and SarupSingh I allotteesof the surplus area and Des Raj flled separateappeals beforetlle C5 I CommissionerPatiala who disinisscdboth the appealsDes Raj led a reviSlOIl beforethe Fiilancial Cotninlssionerwhich was dismissedon Z 301981 41 DesRaj filed CWP No1765 oof1982 which was allowedvide 2 orderdated 223 1996 The Rajpurawas directedto Z redetenniile surpIus area after the Iandand after C0 an to Des Raj lo select his area 7 Z The Collector vide order datedI l 121 997 excludedthe land 18 Bighas and 15 Biswassituated lll KhasraNos 459639 460051469 51and held that as it hasceased to be surplusarca the allotinents made to the private are cancelleclanddirected allotteestodeliver ofthe Iandwlthiil45 days bythisorder SarupSinghfiled an appealbeforethe Cominissioner Patiala Dlvision Patiala The appealwas dismissed on 27999 SarupSinghflled arevision beforethe Financial Conlinissioilet 1 Suresh Kumar 2014.04.04 16: 25 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 468 0 C3 CWP No2988 of2009 3 PunjabVide order dated 5 2 001the Financial III Punjabaccepted the revision set asideorderspassedby theAdditional Coinmissioner lppealsI the Collector Agrarianand directed the Collector Rajpura to redeterinine suiplusarea in accordance with directionsissued by lhe HighCouit after givingcotnplete detailsof the Iand the sales effectedand the Iand with The Financial Coominissioneralso directed the Collector to examine the 1 0 of Section 8 of the Act and decidethe matter afresh after 0 providing an opportLy lo toheland owner to selecthis aiea C40 The petitioner flled CWP No19075 of 2001 Narain Dass Vs C5 I FinanciaICominissioilei Punjabetc which was disinissedOll er Z 7122001 byholdingthat as lhc case Ilas bccn reinandedfor 2 surplus area in accordanccwith directionsissued iil CWP No 1765 of 1982 the order passedbythe FinancialCommissionerdoes not reqUire interference Z The Rajpura to redctermine m surplus area and declared 13422 Ilectaresofland as surplusThe Collector m7 Z included the land sold byDes Rajbut excluded the property The flled an appealbcforetheCommisslonerPatiala wllicll was dismissedon 30122003 The revision filed by the petitioner beforethe FionancialCotninissioner Appeals PunjabWasdistnisseclon 1532008 A review petitionfi Ied by the petitioner was dismissedby the Financial Comlnissioner PunjabOll 162008 Counsel for the pctltloner submits that vide order dated 259 1978 the Collector excluded Iand that was sold by Des Raj but included land The pctitioner this order on theground Suresh Kumar 2014.04.04 16: 25 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 469 0 0 43 CWP No12988 of2009 4 1 that Iandshouldbe excludedfrolnconsiderationThe I4ighCourt the jorayerand directed the Collector to exclude Iand The Col Iector therefore rightlyinaintainedtheexclusioil of land alreadysold and excluded Iand Thc Fionancial Cominissioner set aside this order on an errolleoos of tlle orderpassed bytheHighCourtanddirectedtheCollectorto redeterminethe IandholdingIt is further arguedtlat as oneitllerthc allotteesnor the State m 0 ever the Collectors ordetdated258 1978excluding the landof 0 bonafldesales theCollector after the remandof the case bytheFinancial U I Coinmissionerhad no 10 teoloeilllle eiliie case aild iiocludetlle C5 I Iandwhich was soldbyDcs Rajin thesurplus area Counselfor the howeversubmitsthat vide order Z dated2231 996 this coui1 directedtheCollector AgrarianIjouta IlOt r inerely to exclude land but to rcdetenlline suiplusarea aer I C0 grantingan to Des Raj to lnake C fresh selectionof his Z area The Collector inisconstruedthis order and instead of QO surplus arca merely excluded the mortgageIand The error 7 Z coinmittedbythe Collectorwas rectifledbytheFinancial Cominissioner by Qm directing the Collector to redeterininesurplus area giving details of the land lhe sales effectoecland the Iandinortggc with The orderdated 59200 I passedby the Financial was affirmedbythis Couit in CWP No 19075of2001 Tlle CoIlector therefore rightly to redetcnninesurplus area in accordancewith dilections issuedby this Court It is further arguedthat as the petitioner IS Ilot entitIedto the benefit of sale deeds executedafter the day the Collectorrightly the petitiollers pleafor excludingtllis Iandliolll Suresh Kumar 2014.04.04 16: 25 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 470 0 1 0 9 CWP No12988 of2009 5 7 Tlle Commissionerand the Fiilaricial Cotnillissioilei llalle rightlyaffirmedthe orderpassedbytheCollector I have heard counsel for the parties the i ordersand 11ndno reason lO hold that the i orders are 111 ally manner illegal or void The Collector Divisional Ofcer vide order dated 259 978 excluded land 34 bighasom the Iandholding ofthe blgIandowner on thegroundthat tlle land was sold by 0 0 way of bonafldesaledeeds but includedtheinortgagclaild The 81ed an appealand a revisioil before the Comlnissionerand the Financial t5 I Cominissionerprayingthat tlc land should be excluded but without success The inattei eventually caine up fot consideration before Z r this court in CWP No 1765 of 1982 The writ petitionwas allowed on 223 1996 and the ColIector Agrarian Rajpura was directedto redetennine I thesurplus area in the following terms Z 41 I thcreforeallow the writ pctitionand directthe m Collector lgrarianlRajpurato redetenninethe surplus 7 Z area of the afler the land which 1S Qm the subject matter of tlle mortgagewith posSeSSiOnin favourof Rain Murti and also givean oppoilunity lo the petitioiler lo select his pennissible arca There will be no order as to costs ll A perusalofthis cxtracl discloses that the Collector Agrarian Rajpura was direcled to excludethc inortgageIand but to also redeterinine area after an to the petitioner to select Ilis Suresh Kumar 2014.04.04 16: 25 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 471 1 0 CWP No12988 of2009 6 eJ 9 area The order dated 223 1996 drectingthe ColIectorto redetennione area afteralordingan to Des Rajto select his area 111essence the entirecontroversyand cannot as canvassedbycounsel foi the be as a directionto the Collectorto exclude laondalone The Collector however misconstruedthis order and to exclude Iand alone TheFinancialColninissioner rectiSedthiselror set asideootdels 1 r passedby the Collector aild the Coinmissioneoraild aftcr holdiilglllat 0 directionsissuedby the HighCourt have not been directedthe U I Collector Agrariall to redelerminesurplus area after givingcomplete t I detailsof the land of the Iandownerthe sales eected and the Iand with Tlle partof theorderdatoed592001 Z passed bytheFinancial Commissioneor readsas follows 44 Bolh lhe ordersdo not carry out the directions givenbytlleHoilble HighCourt that thesurplus area be Z 1C redeterinilled after the Iand wloich is the m subject lnatlei of thc inortgagewitll in favour 7 Z of Rain Murti and thercafteran be givento Qe the land owiler to select his area Both courts have taken an over and COtlVelient course I3oth orders of the Collector Agrarianand Additional Colninissionerare therefore to be set aside and full oppoltunity lS to be providedlo the concernedparties to explaintheir stande ln view of above I herebyacceptthe ROR and set aside the order of Collector Agrarianda1ed l l 121 997 Suresh Kumar 2014.04.04 16: 25 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 472 0 A0 CWP No12988 of2009 7 andthatof theAdditionalCoininissionerdated2731 999 and remandthe casc to Collectot AgrarianRajpurato passself 0ers thesurplus area giving detailsofthe Iandofthe Iandownerthe sale effectcdand the land with lll accordailce with Iawlrules calculations Thereaofterthe Iandowner shouldbe givena chance to jr select his area uilder Section5 of thePunjab 0 Land Rcf70nnsAct 1972 as per the directionsof the 40 I Honble ighCourl Tlle Collector shouldalso examlne C5 I the and effect of Section 80f the Punjab Z Land Refonlls Act 1972 in thc context of the present case Paorliesare directedto appearbefore the Col Iector Rajpura on 22 02001 19 I t Z Des Raj thebigIaildowner thisorder byfilingCWP m No 19075of 2001 The writ petition was dismissedon 712 2 001 and the 7 Z order passedby the FinancialConlmissioncr was afllrinedbypassingthe Il following order 64 Tlle disputeherein rclatesto tlle surplus area in the hands of Des RajThemattercame to tIlis court in clvil writ petitionNo 1765 of 1982 which was allowed oll 2232006 and thefollowiilgdirectlon was issued I thcrefore allow the wi it petition and direct the Collector to rcdetermine the surplus area of the petitioner after excludingthe Suresh Kumar 2014.04.04 16: 25 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 473 0 23 CWP No12988 of2009 8 Iandwhich is the subject matter of the mortgage with in favourof Ram Mur aondalso givean opportly to the to selecthis area There will be no order as to costs 19 Iil pursuance to this direction the Collector Agrariaillbyhis orderdatcd l l 12 1997reedeterinned 1 r the surplus area lll thc handsof tlle land owner andthat 0 order was affirlned by the Adclitional Cotnmissioner 0 I PatialaDivision The ordei of the Collector 6Agrarianl 0 I andthat of the Additional Cotninissioileiwere Z beforethe Financial CoinmissionerPullab wllo allowed therevisionpetition that the oorderswere non and did not disclosethc reasons The Iearned I FinancialCommissionerwas aso of the view that the Z directioils givenbythis Court whoile the case OO to the Col Iector Agrarianl had not bcen canied out 7 Z lllasmucIlils Iandin the handsof the land owner had not Il beenpropcrlycalculatedShe sct aside the order of the Collector 6Agrailnl and thc Additoional Coinlllissloiler and rcinaondedlhc case back lo the Collector Agrarianlfor a fresh determinationof the arca Ill the hands of DesjRaj I1 is against this order thal the presentpetitionhas been Oled under Article 226 ofthe Constitution We have heard Iearned senior counsel for the Suresh Kumar 2014.04.04 16: 25 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 474 4 CWP No 12988of2009 9 and the order passed bythe FinancialCoinmissionerThe case hasbeenreinandedfor redeterminationof the surplusarea 111the Iightof the directionsalreadyissued by this court in civil writ no 765 of 1982and thereforewe do not flnd anygroundto interfere with this order of remand the wnt petition fails and the same stand 10C dismissed Tlle Collcctor lgrarianl Rajpura1S 0 however directed to flnalise the determinationof the 0 surplus area but not later thansix months C5 I fromthe dateofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order Z The orclerpassedby Financial Coomlnissioner directing the Collector to consoiderthe sale cleeds the land and redetermine I r tlle surplus area was afflrinedbyclearlyholdingthat the case has been Z remandedfor determinationof surplus area in the Iiglltof dit0ectioilsalmady CQ issued 111 CWP No l 765 of 1982 The Collector Agrarianrightly 7 Z reassessedthe of the biglandowner and declared l 3422 hectaresof Iand surplusTloe revisiotl Oled by the beforethe Coinmissioner was dismissed as was the revision Oled before the Financial Coinmissioner The argulneiltsaclvancedby counsel for the as the Collector was to exclude Iand alone he could not reopenother the entire matter i n iny considered opinionlS not tenable Vide order dated2231996 the Collector Agrariail was directed to exclude inortgage Iand but was also directed to redetenninesurplusarea after Suresh Kumar 2014.04.04 16: 25 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 475 l 0 CWP No2988 of2009 7 40 an to the bigIandownerto select his areae The use ofthe words redetenninethe surplus area atld 64 afford an to the to select his area leave no that this court intendedthat the CollectorshouWreopensuiplus area Ill their enlirelyFheargumentthat the Collector Agrarian wasto onlyexcludc landmay have met witll success ifthis courl had direcled theCollectorto excludethe Iand alone 1 0 The argumentthal as the order dated2591978 passecl bythe 0 Collectoor sale decds from consideration was not by 0 the State oor the allottees tlle ColIector Agrariancould not reopen this t5 I Ordei must also fail Apartfroin the fact that the CollectoorAgrarian was directed to redetenninesurplus area the redetenninatioil so inade by Z 2 the inortgageIand alone was set aside by the Financial Coinmissionervide her order clated52001 This order was by I L thepetitioner in CWP No 19075of 2001 and afOnned bya Division Bench Z of this court on 71 22001 he correctness of tlle order passedby the 0 FinancialCointnissionerdirccting theCollector to redeterilliilesullolils atea 7 Z lll accordancewith directionsissued bythiscoutthavingbeenafOrmed lll Il CWP No 19075 of 2001 the canllot be heard to urge that the Collector Agrarianhad no jurisdiction to include Iand wllicll was subject tnatterofsale deeds while surplus area In view of what has been stated herein above l have no hesitationill holdingthat the iinpugned ordersdo 1101Suffer 60111Elllyerror or of law as would requireinterfereilce IIle wiil IS dismissedwith no order as to costs 122010 RAJIVE BHALLAI 1 GS JUDGE Suresh Kumar 2014.04.04 16: 25 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document