C.W.P. No.4241 of 1983 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No.6119 of 2010 and C.W.P. No.4241 of 1983 Date of Decision. 02.11.2011 Inder Parkash S/o Pt. Sunder Lal and another .....Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab through Secretary to Government, Punjab, Revenue Department, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents 2. C.W.P. No.4322 of 1983 (O&M) Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur wife of Sh. Baldev Singh Sidhu .....Petitioner Versus The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents 3. C.M. No.6125 of 2010 in C.W.P. No.6034 of 1983 (O&M) Harbans Lal (through LRs) and others .....Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab through Secretary to Government, Punjab, Revenue Department, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nitin Sarin, Advocate. Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikas Singh, Mr. Jagdev Singh and Ms. Shikha Sharma, Advocates. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab. Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate for the applicants. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No -.- K. KANNAN J. 1. In all the three writ petitions, the issue for consideration is the C.W.P. No.4241 of 1983 -2- correctness of the declaration of the surplus land and the claims of predecessors which are said to have been discarded. The land owners feeling aggrieved challenged the determination. In C.W.P. No.4241 of 1983, the land owner concerned is one Padmawati and the declaration of surplus was said to have been made on 25.11.1968 under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. The petition in C.W.P. No.4241 of 1983 was at the instance of one Inder Parkash, who claimed as a lessee from Padmawati under registered sale deed in September, 1949. He was himself the son of the brother of the husband of Padmawati. There had been proceedings between the tenant and Padmawati during her life time for eviction and the petitioner himself had filed an application under Section 18 of the Punjab Act for determination of his proprietary rights. The tenant’s possession is an admitted fact and in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal s. State of punjab1971 Revenue Law Report 137, the ejectment proceedings would come to naught if the tenant had initiated action for purchase rights under Section 18 before the actual dispossession. The petitioner’s grievance was that he had not been served with any notice regarding the determination of surplus and therefore, such a determination was not valid. 2. The petitioner in C.W.P. No.4322 of 1983 claimed similarly that as a predecessor, who was entitled to notice and any determination without notice cannot be started. The petitioner was bound to have made reservation in such a way that the property alienated by him must have been reserved within the permissible area so that the landlord could not have obtained double benefit of getting the area alienated out of his personal holding and also took the benefit of sale made above the permissible area. 3. In C.W.P. No.6034 of 1983, the petitioners claimed to be tenants C.W.P. No.4241 of 1983 -3- under Padmawati and claim similar rights as contended in C.W.P. No.4241 of 1983. 4. Although several points have been taken by the learned Senior Counsel, Sh. M.L.Sarin to contend that as to how proceedings taken by the authorities under the Act are legally suspect, I am not prepared to examine all of them and would rest on a singular consideration of the fact that the declaration has not come to a finality and even when the proceedings were still pending, the land owner Padmawati died on 08.05.1974 and succession has opened and in terms of Full Bench ruling of this Court in Sardara Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner 2008(3) PLR 297 , the property has not vested in the State and there being final determination of the surplus area, it requires to be re-determined in the hands of legal representatives of the deceased landlord after serving notices to all the alienees, including the purchasers and lessees, who were parties before these proceedings. The impugned declaration of surplus is set aside, taking note of the subsequent event and the matter is remitted to the prescribed authority for fresh consideration in the light of the fact of succession to the legal representatives of the deceased owner for a determination of the surplus having due regard to the alienation made and the claims of the predecessors and the lessees. 5. The applications for impleadment are ordered. Having regard to the nature of disposal undertaken in this writ petition, the impleaded parties will also be served with notices before the decision is taken. 6. All the writ petitions are allowed and remitted to the authority for fresh consideration in the light of above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 02, 2011 Pankaj*