C.W.P No. 5699 of 1992 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 5699 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision : May 05, 2011 Ram Lal, ...... Petitioner v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and others, ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. C.M.Munjal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Chandumajra, DAG Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. R.S.Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. *** 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 8.10.1991 (Annexure P-1), 10.7.1991 (Annexure P-2) and 12.3.1986 (Annexure P-3), dismissing his objections against the pendency of proceedings under Section 13(1) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. Brief facts are that some land of the petitioner was initially declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. C.W.P No. 5699 of 1992 (O&M) ::2:: While those proceedings were under challenge, the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (for short “the Act”) was enacted and notified. The main contention of the petitioner was that his case should be proceeded under the Act. This contention has been declined by the revenue authorities, vide the impugned orders. The Financial Commissioner in his order dated 8.10.1991 has held as under :- “9. I have heard the arguments of counsel for both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower Rev. Courts. I agree with the reasons put forth by the Senior State Counsel that the petitioner-landowner will get an opportunity to plead his case before the Special Collector (Agrarian), Fazilka, in response to notices yet to be issued under section 9(1). Now the Collector, vide his impugned order dated 12.3.1986, has only separated the share of the petitioner from the joint holding of other co-sharers and notices under section 9(1) of the Act are yet to be issued to the landowner etc. The petitioner will get an opportunity to file his objections which would be gone into by the Collector before proceedings u/s 9(2) of the Act. The present revision petition, therefore, appears to be pre-matures, as under Section 13(1) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, the Collector could only separate the share of the big landowner from the other co-sharers. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed as such in limine.” Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the above reasoning is faulty, in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ranjit Ram vs The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and others, 1981 PLJ 259, wherein it has been held as follows :- “ ............ A landowner whose land has been declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, or under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, and who has not yet been divested of the ownership of the surplus area before the enforcement of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, is entitled to select the permissible area for his family and for each of his adult sons in view of the provisions of Section 4 read with Section 5(1) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act.” C.W.P No. 5699 of 1992 (O&M) ::3:: It could not be disputed by counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 that the land continued to be in the possession of the petitioner and, thus, it has to be held that the petitioner was not divested of the ownership. In the circumstances, the case of the petitioner has to be dealt with under the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. However, it would be in the interest of justice if the matter relating to the surplus area of the petitioner is decided expeditiously. Counsel for the parties have informed me that powers of the Special Collector have now been devolved upon the Deputy Commissioner. In the circumstances, I direct the petitioner as well as respondents No.4 and 5 to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur on 1.6.2011. The concerned authority is directed to finalize the proceedings under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 05, 2011. JUDGE `kk'