C.W.P No. 110 of 1987 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 110 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision : August 17, 2010 Dev Raj, ...... Petitioner v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Randhir Singh, Addl. A.G Haryana for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.4.1984 (Annexure P-3), as also the order dated 22.1.1986 (Annexure P- 4) whereby the plea of the petitioner that the land in dispute cannot be a part of surplus pool was declined. The undisputed facts are that one Rajinder Singh-respondent No.5 was a big land owner. By sale deed dated 20.6.1958 (before the appointed date), he sold about 434 kanals 19 marlas of land to one Rajpal Singh and mutation in that regard was sanctioned vide mutation No.512. C.W.P No. 110 of 1987 (O&M) ::2:: Thereupon, his two sons Raminder Singh and Gajinder Singh filed a suit for pre-emption of the sale which was decreed on 1.8.1959. However, thereafter respondent No.3 passed the order dated 29.6.1960 declaring the same land as surplus in the hands of aforesaid Rajinder Singh. During this interregnum, the petitioner purchased 55 kanals 16 marlas of land from the aforesaid Raminder Singh and Gajinder Singh vide registered sale deed dated 24.7.1972. To substantiate his argument that the land in dispute could not be a part of surplus pool of Rajinder Singh aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in C.W.P No.4929 of 1982, Raminder Singh and another vs The State of Haryana and others, decided on 26.2.1997. In the said case, the vendors of the petitioners therein had challenged the continuation of surplus proceedings with regard to the same land. This Court held as follows :- “ Therefore, it is clear that the land which was the subject matter of pre-emption suit and which was acquired by the petitioners by virtue of the decree in pre- emption suit cannot be included in the surplus area of 4th respondent. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioners' claim to the land which was the subject matter of the pre-emption suit shall not be included in the holding of their father and the writ petition is to be allowed.” In my opinion, the above judgment covers the facts of this case on all force. In fact, learned counsel for the respondents has very candidly conceded that the aforesaid judgment has become final and once that is so, C.W.P No. 110 of 1987 (O&M) ::3:: and the land held to be not surplus in the hands of the predecessors of the petitioner, the same cannot be held to be surplus in the hands of the petitioner also. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders (Annexures P-3 and P-4) are set aside. As the main petition has since been allowed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) August 17, 2010. JUDGE `kk'