CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4103 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 17, 2009 Chand Kaur and others .....Petitioners VERSUS Garib Dass and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. P.L.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 were allotted surplus land on 20.2.1975. The said allotment was cancelled by Collector, Agrarian, Patiala on 8.10.1980. Thereafter, the land was allotted to the petitioners on 1.2.1982. The order of cancellation was challenged by respondent Nos.1 to 5 and so also the allotment order in favour of the petitioners dated 1.2.1982. The petitioners remained unsuccessful and had gone upto Hon'ble Supreme Court against CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4103 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: those orders but still their SLP was dismissed on 4.5.1995. The possession of the land was accordingly taken from the petitioners by respondent Nos.1 to 5 on 19.9.1996. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent Nos.1 to 5 orally sold this land within six months of taking over the possession of the same to Bela Singh son of Bhan Singh. This is stated to be in contravention of provisions of para 10 (e) of the Punjab Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme, 1973 (for short, “the Scheme”). The petitioners accordingly filed an application on 9.3.1999 for cancellation of allotment in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and restoration of possession of the land to them. During the pendency of this petition, one Kartar Kaur (respondent No.8) also filed an application for allotment of land in dispute in her favour. The Collector did not implead Kartar Kaur but on an appeal filed by her, she was impleaded as a respondent. She made a claim on the basis of inheritance, which was clubbed with the application filed by the petitioners seeking cancellation of allotment of the land in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 5. Collector, however, dismissed the application filed by the petitioners on 4.4.2001. He also dismissed the claim of Kartar Kaur. She challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the Commissioner. The petitioners also filed an appeal against the order passed by the Collector. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed whereas the one filed by Kartar Kaur was allowed. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 challenged the order dated 30.4.2001, whereby the Commissioner had allowed the appeal filed by Kartar Kaur, by filing a petition before the Financial CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4103 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: Commissioner. The petitioners had also filed a petition before the Financial Commissioner. Financial Commissioner had set-aside the order passed by the Commissioner and had up-held the order passed by the Collector. The petitioners have, thus, filed the present writ petition to impugn the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. While allowing the petition filed by the respondents Nos.1 to 5, the Financial Commissioner has rightly noticed that the main issue involved was whether Kartar Kaur was covered by the definition of family of the land owner to get any relief. The Commissioner had returned a finding that Kartar Kaur was covered by the definition of a family. Financial Commissioner found that this view was not correct. The definition of the family as given under Section 3(4) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 provides that family in relation to a person means the person, being the present wife, husband as the case may be, of such person and his or her minor children, other than a married minor daughter. Thus, as per the definition only children of the land owner would be covered by the definition of family and not the grand children. Kartar Kaur, being a grand daughter of the land owner would, thus be not covered by the definition of a family. Accordingly, the Financial Commissioner was justified in interfering with the view taken by the Commissioner and also holding that Kartar Kaur was condemned unheard. Accordingly, the order passed by the Collector dated 4.4.2001 was up-held. It may deserve a mention here that the Collector found it as a matter of fact that respondent Nos.1 to 5 had not sold the land to Bela Singh in any manner whatsoever and, thus, they had not CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4103 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: violated the provisions of Para 10 (e) of the Scheme. The Collector also found that the petitioners did not produce any evidence to show that the land was sold by respondent Nos.1 to 5 to Bela Singh. Accordingly, no case for interference in the impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner is made out. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. March 18, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE