IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) Civil Writ Petition No.6548 of 1986 Date of decision : 08.11.2011 Krishan Lal and others ....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS The State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENT(S) (ii) Civil Writ Petition No.6797 of 1986 Date of decision : 08.11.2011 Gautam ....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner (Taxation) Punjab, Chandigarh and others ....RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KANNAN *** Present : Mr.Pran Nath Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Harminder Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 4 in both petitions. Mr.Liaqat Ali, Advocate, for respondent No.5 in CWP No.6797. *** 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 ? *** K.KANNAN, J (Oral) The aforesaid two writ petitions challenge the same order passed by the authorities constituted under the Punjab Land Reform Act, 1972. Although, several points are urged to impugn the order declaring the surplus and the allotment made subsequently. I would confine this order to the consequence of death of the big land owner subsequent to the filing of the petition and its ramification on the finality of the determination through an application filed in Civil Misc.No.3621 of 2011. It has been brought on Civil Writ Petition No.6548 of 1986 -2- record that the big land owner Dewan Chand died in July, 2005 and two of his sons have been directed to be impleaded as legal representatives. This Court has passed the order on 16.03.2011, directing the impleadment and bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased/respondent in this case, the order of the collector has been stayed initially on 18.12.1986 in so far as the landlord attempted to make reservation of the property which was said to have been sold. In CWP No.6548 of 1986, the stay of dispossession was allowed to continue when the writ petition was admitted on 16.02.1987. Evidently, the order declaring surplus has not resulted in utilisation of the property by the State and in terms of the Full Bench Ruling of this Court in Sardara Singh vs. Financial Commissioner 2008 (2) Law Herald (P&H) (Punjab) 961 the property in the hands of the legal representatives will have to be re-determined. In view of aforesaid, both the writ petitions are allowed; the order of the authorities declaring the surplus is consequently set aside and the matter is remitted to the competent authority, who is Collector, for a fresh determination in accordance with law. The parties before this Court shall be served with notices particularly, the petitioners, who claim that they are purchasers and who want to contend that the landlod had reserved the property sold to them as within his permissible area and he could not have make modification so as to prejudice the rights of the purchasers. All the` issues are open for consideration before the Collector, who shall hear the objection of the parties and make a fresh re-determination in accordance with law. ( K.KANNAN ) November 08, 2011. JUDGE mamta