IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5556 of 1985 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.10.2011 Punjab Rai and others ....Petitioners versus State of Punjab, through Secretary to Government of Punjab, Revenue Department, Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, and Mr. Jagdev Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents 1 to 4. Mr. S.C. Khungar, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The only point urged in this writ petition filed at the instance of the purchaser is whether he has the locus standi to approach this Court challenging the issue of the application of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (for short, the 1972 Act') which sets a ceiling limit for the permissible area of a holding of a landowner. This objection is taken at the instance of the respondent, who is the land owner and who contends that the writ petition Civil Writ Petition No.5556 of 1985 (O&M) - 2 - cannot be maintained at the instance of the purchaser from the owner. He is prepared to concede on an issue of law that if the proceedings under the 1972 Act have not come to a finality on the decision of the Collector by a challenge in higher forum of adjudication, then any inheritance will operate to make possible a reckoning of holding of each one of the legal heirs of the last landowner relevant in terms of the decision of Sardara Singh and others Versus The Financial Commissioner and others-2008(3) PLR 297. 2. The learned counsel for the private respondent refers to a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Balbir Singh etc. Versus Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab-1996 (2) PLR 594 that dealt with the case of a purchaser from an owner who challenged the manner of declaration of the permissible area in form-A under the Punjab Land Reforms Rules of 1973. In that case, the landowner had, while filling form-A deliberately excluded the property sold by him and exposed the purchaser to the action by the State of treating that property to be included within the surplus area. The Bench held that a purchaser, who has suffered a detriment by the manner of declaration made by the owner will have no reason to bypass the salutary provisions of 1972 Act and such a purchaser will have no locus standi to plead that the disputed land should be treated as falling within the landowners permissible area. This observation, in my view, cannot be supported any longer as stating the correct law Civil Writ Petition No.5556 of 1985 (O&M) - 3 - in the light of the Full Bench ruling which makes possible the reckoning to be freshly undertaken in every case where the succession opens when proceedings are pending under the Act and when the declaration of the Collector has not attained finality. The rule of standing in Balbir Singh's case has no longer value in the new understanding that Sardara Singh's case provides. I will, therefore, reject the objection that the respondent takes that the purchaser does not have the locus standi to challenge the proceeding taken under the Land Reforms Act. 3. The Collector is at liberty to take a reappraisal in the light of the subsequent event of the death of the landowner and how it effects the permissible area in the light of the Full Bench ruling of this Court in Sardara Singh's case. 4. The writ petition is disposed of. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 13.10.2011 sanjeev