IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4408 of 1985 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.10.2011 Niranjan Singh and another ....Petitioners versus State of Punjab, through Secretary to Government, Punjab, Revenue Department, Chandigarh, and another. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents 1 and 2. ---- 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. (Oral) The writ petition contains a challenge to the order of the Financial Commissioner, who considered the issue of death of the landowner and the effect of the holding in the hands of the legal heirs. In the impugned order, the Commissioner had held that the decision rendered by this Court in Ranjit Ram Versus Financial Commissioner-1981 PLJ 259 was a subject of challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the decision would govern the issue of the effect of opening of succession when the surplus area was not Civil Writ Petition No.4408 of 1985 (O&M) - 2 - utilized and when the Collector's declaration had not obtained finality. This issue has also been a subject of an adjudication by a Full Bench of this Court in Sardara Singh and others Versus The Financial Commissioner and others-2008(3) PLR 297. The learned senior counsel refers me also to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ujjagar Singh (dead) by LRs Versus Hazara Singh and others- AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2623 which affirmed the decision of the Bench of this Court in Ranjit Ram's case. The point involved in this case is fully covered and if the holding of total surplus area were to be determined with reference to the respective holdings of the legal heirs of the original landowner, then there would be no surplus left. The impugned order is, under the circumstances, set aside and the writ petition is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 13.10.2011 sanjeev