Civil Writ Petition No. 2273 of 1985 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 2273 of 1985 Date of decision: 19.5.2009 Buta Singh ...petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate Mr. Jashanpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 2270, 2271, 2272 and 2273 of 1985. The petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged order dated 9.12.1982 (Anexure P-1 in respective writ petition) passed by the Financial Commissioner Appeals, Punjab rejecting the reference made to him and to determine the surplus area of Saudagar Singh under the Punjab Reforms Act (hereinafter called Reforms Act). The facts noticed in brief are that Saudagar Singh son of Mangal Singh resident of village Dhandra, Tehsil and District Ludhiana was the owner of land situated in village Taraf Saidan and Dhandra, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. Proceedings under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act were taken against him and land measuring 10 standard acres 13 ¼ units was declared surplus Civil Writ Petition No. 2273 of 1985 2 by Collector, Agrarian, Ludhiana on 14.12.1959. It is claimed that the land so declared surplus remained in possession of Sh. Saudagar Singh and in the meantime Reforms Act was legislated in the year 1972. The proceedings accordingly were initiated against Saudagar Singh under the Reforms Act. Saudagar Singh challenged the vires of the Reforms Act by filing C.W.P. No. 724 of 1974 before this Court. This writ petition was finally dismissed by Full Bench of this Court on 17.2.1977. The petitioner, however, was given liberty to pursue his remedy available under the Reforms Act. The petitioner was given one month time, from the date of order, to file the returns under the Reforms Act if he had not already done so, which was to be considered and dealt with. In view of the pleas raised before him, respondent No. 3 (Collector, Agrarian, Ludhiana) made a reference to respondent No. 2 for direction whether the land owner is entitled to select permissible area for his adult grand son when his son had pre- deceased him. Respondent No. 2 had answered this reference through the impugned order dated 9.12.1982 (Annexure P-1), which was challenged through these writ petitions. Respondent No. 2 while rejecting the reference has held that for giving the benefit of separate permissible area to the widow and children of the deceased adult son on the analogy that such a provision exists in the Ceiling Laws enacted and enforced by the sister State of Haryana, is prima facie, uncalled for and unjustified. He has accordingly held that the cases had to be decided in the light of the Punjab Ceiling Laws i.e. Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 and the rules framed thereunder. Respondent No. 2 has also viewed that Civil Writ Petition No. 2273 of 1985 3 issue is not of interpretation of the Punjab Law, which is clear and specific and unless amended by the legislature has to be enforced regardless of any consideration of the equity. The cases were remanded back to Collector, Agrarian, Ludhiana to decide the same in accordance with the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 without any further delay. These writ petitions challenging the order rejecting reference were admitted on 3.5.1985 and further proceedings before the Collector, Agrarian stayed. This order was modified on 12.7.1985 by directing that the evidence of the parties be recorded but the final order be not passed till further order. The writ petitions have now come up for hearing. The basic grievance raised by the petitioner is that there is a provision for selecting permissible area for adult sons of the pre- deceased son under the Haryana Act which is sister State but there is no such provision under the Punjab Act (Reforms Act). It is averred that the petitioner being widow of the pre-deceased son of the land owner is a heir and is entitled to benefit of sub Sections (5) and (7) of Section 11 of the Act and the surplus area is required to be determined in the hands of the heir. Reference is made to judgments like Smt. Ajit Kaur versus State of Punjab, 1980 PLJ 354 and Ranjit Ram Versus F.C. Punjab, 1981 PLR, 492 in support of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, it is emphasized that the petitioner being the widow of son of pre-deceased son of the land owner or being the grand son of the big land owners would be entitled to a separate unit on the basis of view taken by Full Bench decision of this Court in these cases. Civil Writ Petition No. 2273 of 1985 4 The prayer of the petitioners for having a separate unit is under consideration and no order in this regard has been passed so far. Only the reference has been answered in the manner that the case of the petitioner is required to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Reforms Act, 1972. The legal position that reference is to be decided under the Reforms Act cannot be a matter of any serious debate. There may be a provision made in the sister State of Haryana but the case of petitioner is required to be decided under the Punjab Reforms Act and not under the Act, which is applicable in the sister State. There is thus no scope of taking any exception to the view expressed by the Financial Commissioner in the impugned order. If the petitioner is entitled to seek a separate unit on the basis of judgment in the case of Ranjit Ram (supra) or any other judgment, the petitioner can very well plead so before the Collector, Agrarian to whom the cases had been remanded and before whom the proceedings are being conducted. The plea of the petitioner if accepted, may not leave him with any grievance. On the other hand, if his plea is rejected and the petitioners are not held entitled to separate unit, they would always have liberty to challenge said orders passed by the Collector, Agrarian in accordance with law. No occasion would arise for this Court to go into this aspect of the cases at this stage as these have only been remanded. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. The petitioner would now appear before the Collector, Agrarian and raise all the pleas regarding have separate unit as per the provisions of Reforms Act. Civil Writ Petition No. 2273 of 1985 5 Needless to mention that the petitioners will be at liberty to challenge the order, if they are aggrieved against the orders passed by the Collector Agrarian. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Collector, Agrarian, Ludhiana on 6.7.2009. May 19, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE