IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7347 of 1991 (O&M) Date of decision:21.07.2011 Dayal Singh and others ...Petitioners versus The Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. N.S.Pawar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. ---- 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) 1. The petitioners have sought for quashing of the orders passed by the revenue authorities, upholding the claim of the landlord for rent. The defence by the petitioners was that the property in their possession was declared as surplus under the Punjab Land Reforms Act and the surplus had been assigned by the State in favour of the petitioners themselves. The sale by the State and the declaration of surplus appears to have been a subject of challenge by the owner in independent proceedings. The orders passed already could be successfully challenged only if the petitioners themselves had become the owners by virtue of sale by the State after treating the property as Civil Writ Petition No.7347 of 1991 (O&M) - 2 - surplus. If, on the other hand, the landlord had been successful in his contention that the property could not have been treated as surplus, the claim for recovery of rent was perfectly tenable and the order passed could then be unassailable. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that there is no instructions on the ultimate outcome of the proceedings initiated at the instance of the owner challenging the Government’s action treating the property as surplus. As of now, there is no error in the order passed by the respective authorities to sustain the challenge before this Court. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, but the petitioners will be at liberty for any modification or review, if the petitioners themselves were to be declared to be the owners of the property at the relevant time when the claim for rent was made and in respect of which, the orders have already been passed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 21.07.2011 sanjeev