Civil Writ Petition No. 2471 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 2471 of 1991 Date of decision : 25.07.2011 Gokal and others .....Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. L.N. Verma, Advocate with Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG Haryana Mr. Sudarshan Goel, Advocate and Mr. Ravi Sodhi, Advocate for private respondents except Morari Lal s/o Ram Narain RANJIT SINGH, J. This order shall dispose of four Civil Writ Petitions i.e. Civil Writ Petition No. 2471 of 1991 (Gokal and others versus The State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No. 6795 of 1991 (Budh Ram and others versus The State of Haryana and others), Civil Writ Petition No. 11450 of 1991 (Sukh Ram and others versus The State of Haryana and others) and Civil Writ Petition No. 11451 of 1991 (Mukh Ram and others versus The State of Haryana and others). The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 2471 of 1991. The petitioners were tenants on a land which was declared surplus a long ago. The petitioners are aggrieved against the order passed by Financial Commissioner remanding the case back to the Collector for redetermining the surplus area alongwith Civil Writ Petition No. 2471 of 1991 2 certain directions. While remanding the case, the Financial Commissioner has directed that Collector shall determine the surplus area afresh by keeping in view the following factors:- (i) That inheritance had reopened under the provisions of Section 10-A(b) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act; (ii) The two cases have to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tendures Act as judicially construed; and (iii) The details of land holdings of the present three appellants in their cases decided in 1962 including the land inherited by them consequent upon the death of their father Siri Ram should also be taken into account while deciding the two appeal under consideration. In case the three appellants are found to be small landowners, the question of determination of any tenants permissible area will not arise. If, however, anyone of the three appellants Sham Sunder, Baldev Parsad and Banwari Lal is found to be a big landowner the Collector Surplus Area will also have to review the case and determine the tenants permissible area and the surplus area according to law. Aggrieved against the same, the tenant has challenged this order of remand. The facts in brief are that surplus area of big land owner Ram Narain (respondent No. 5) was determined under Punjab Civil Writ Petition No. 2471 of 1991 3 Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 hereinafter (Punjab Act). The case was initially decided by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Sirsa exercising the powers of the Collector Surplus Area on 31.1.1962 and 13.57 ordinary acres of his land was declared as surplus and 69.16 ordinary acres as the permissible area of old tenants. Ram Narain filed no appeal or any other proceedings against the order dated 31.1.1962 and allowed it to become final. Subsequently sons of Ram Narain (Respondents No. 6 to 9) filed a civil suit at Sirsa challenging the legality of the order dated 31.1.1962. As per respondents No. 6 to 9 they had become owner of a part of the holding of Ram Narain vide civil Court decree dated 20.11.1959 which was based upon the family settlement arrived at between them and their father. Accordingly, they claimed in the suit that they were entitled to be heard before any order declaring the land surplus was passed. Sub Judge, Sirsa decreed the suit vide his judgment and decree dated 5.4.1982 and set aside the order dated 31.1.1962 declaring this land as surplus. The respondent-State filed an appeal against this judgment which was dismissed on 22.11.1984. In view of this decree, the Collector Surplus Area again initiated proceedings for deciding the surplus area of Ram Narain by giving adequate opportunity to respondents No. 5 to 9, vide order dated 5.9.1988 and allowed 60 ordinary acres of land to respondent No. 5 as his permissible area and declaring entire land in possession of the tenants including the petitioners since 15.4.1953 till date as the permissible area of the old tenants. The copy of this order is annexed with the petition. Dissatisfied with the order annexure P-1, Civil Writ Petition No. 2471 of 1991 4 respondents No. 5 to 9 filed appeal before the Commissioner Hisar Division, Hissar who vide his order dated 25.11.1988 remanded the case back to the Collector Surplus Area with certain directions for deciding the same afresh. Feeling aggrieved against the same, respondents No. 5 to 9 filed an appeal before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana who has decided and allowed the same vide impugned order dated 9.8.1990 and the case has been remanded back to the Collector Surplus with the direction as mentioned above. The writ petition was admitted and operation of the impugned order was stayed. Reply has been filed by the State as well as by the private respondent (land owners). In my view a very short question arises for consideration regarding the directions given by the Financial Commissioner. Once the Financial Commissioner has held that the order passed by the Collector surplus declaring the area of respondent as surplus on 31.1.1962 has been set aside which has acquired finality, the case of surplus area would have to be reassessed and redetermined. Obviously the Collector had done so and passed a fresh order in the year 1988 when the then Haryana Act has come into operation which is titled as Haryana Ceiling of Land Holding Act, 1972. Once the earlier order was set aside and the new Act has been enforced, the issue of surplus which was to be re-determined and re-decided ought to be done under the new Act. In my view the new Act would govern the issue of declaring the land as surplus at the hands of the respondents and land owners. The direction given by the Financial Commissioner to decide the case and re-determine this area under the Punjab Land Tenures Act, thus would apparently sound improper. The remand order, however, has Civil Writ Petition No. 2471 of 1991 5 not been put to challenge by the land owners and is challenged by the tenants to this extent. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The remand order remanding the case as directed by the Financial Commissioner would stand but with the modification that the Collector shall now determine the Surplus area of the land owners under the provisions of Haryana Act instead of directions as given. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. July 25, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) reena JUDGE