CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6644 OF 2004 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 28,2011 Sneh Lata and others .....Petitioners VERSUS Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab, Chandigarh 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. Rakesh Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. A. S. Jattana, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State. Mr. P. C. Rakhra, Advocate, for respondent No.6. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners being L.Rs of big land owner, Sain Dass, filed Civil Writ Petition No.6644 of 2004 (Sneh Lata and others Vs. Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab, Chandigarh and others) to impugn the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, whereby he has set-aside the orders passed by the Collector and Commissioner. Civil Writ Petition No.18555 of 2006 (Sohan Singh CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6644 OF 2004 :{ 2 }: through his L.Rs Jita Devi and others Vs. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, Chandigarh and others) is filed by the tenants, who are also aggrieved against the order passed by the Collector to review the order of allotment standing in their favour. Since both the cases relate to same land of big land owner, Sain Dass, these writ petitions were ordered to be heard together and are being disposed of through this common order. As per the tenant-petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No.18555 of 2006, the whole land of late Sain Dass, part of Village Sariana, was declared surplus under Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (for short, “the Act”). The big land owner died and the land, thus, declared surplus remained as such since he had no adult son on the appointed date. The tenants would claim that land measuring 36 kanals 2 marlas was allotted to them whereas another land measuring 54 kanals 4 marlas was allotted to one Jagat Singh. The petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No.6644 of 2004, who are L.Rs of big land owner, however, have filed this petition without giving the details properly. They have vaguely averred that the tenants in this case had got allotment on the basis of some manipulation. It is pointed out that Rai Singh and Sohan Singh, who were brothers of respondent No.5, moved an application for seeking allotment of land measuring 44 kanals 4 marlas. This application is stated to be misleading and on this basis, respondent No.4 got an allotment in his favour on 4.2.1981 by showing this land to be surplus with late Sain Dass. The petitioners had moved an application for ejectment of the tenants on the ground that they had failed to pay the rent CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6644 OF 2004 :{ 3 }: regularly without sufficient cause and, therefore, they should be ejected. While dealing with this application, Collector Agrarian noticed that he had passed two contradictory orders. In one order, a land measuring 44 kanals 4 marlas was allotted to respondent No.5, treating it as surplus of late Sain Dass and in second order dated 29.9.1981, it was mentioned that the land of late Sain Dass was no more available for allotment as the death of Sain Dass was not brought to his notice. The Collector Agrarian has reviewed the order dated 4.2.1981, whereby the allotment was made. The tenants did not file any appeal and ultimately approached the Commissioner after 12 years on 5.8.1994. This appeal was dismissed. The allotment order dated 4.2.1981 was held bad, void, abinitio. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay, against which the respondent-tenants approached the Financial Commissioner, who has set-aside the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner. The petitioners have filed Civil Writ Petition No.6644 of 2004 to impugn this order passed by the Financial Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner could only raise one submission against the impugned order that the respondent-tenants had made a delayed approach and this was enough to negate their challenge. Strangely, however, it is urged that no land at the hands of late Sain Dass was declared surplus and hence, the allotment order was rightly reviewed. The counsel accordingly pleads that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner can not be sustained. As is noticed by the Financial Commissioner, the petitioners had filed petition under Section 8, 11(5) of the Act for CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6644 OF 2004 :{ 4 }: deletion of utilized area of Sain Dass, big land owner. The Collector Agrarian held that surplus area of Sain Dass was not utilized during his life time and it did not vest in the State. He accordingly held that it would go out of the surplus pool. This order was passed in the presence of applicant-petitioners only and without any notice to the effected parties. Noticing this order, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade observed and reviewed order dated 4.2.1981 of the land allotted in favour of the tenants on the ground that there are two contradictory orders, one whereby land was allotted and another where it was held that there is no land in the surplus pool. The allotment order was reviewed without putting the tenants to the notice and without there being any application or move having been made for review of this order. Whether the Collector Agrarian would have any power of reviewing the order or whether this was an appropriate mode to review the order, would be a serious question inviting attention. Even if the Collector Agrarian was to review this order, he could have done so only after putting the parties to notice and that too if there was any application for review filed before him. Nothing has been pointed out before me, if the Collector Agrarian has any suo-motu power to review the order of allotment, which was earlier passed. This being the position, the Collector and the Commissioner were not justified in rejecting the challenge of the tenants. The Financial Commissioner, in my view, has validly invoked his jurisdiction. The Financial Commissioner has further observed that the big land owner did not have any adult son on the appointed day. Even date of birth of the son was not on record. The date of death of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6644 OF 2004 :{ 5 }: big land owner was also not available. No formal proceedings under the new Act were held to close the surplus area proceedings on the ground that there was no surplus area in the hands of heirs. The Financial Commissioner has rightly held that the authorities were not justified in reviewing the order. No case for interference in the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, therefore, is made out. Civil Writ Petition No.6644 of 2004 is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No.18555 of 2006 have prayed for quashing of orders, Annexures P-4 to P-7. Through these orders, the petitioners have not only been ordered to be evicted but were required to pay the rent of varying amount in these orders. Since the petitioners' allotment has now been upheld, the resultant effect of the same would follow on these orders accordingly. Civil Writ Petition No.18555 of 2006 would stand disposed of in the light of order passed in Civil Writ Petition No.6644 of 2004. September 28,2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE