AJMER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing in limine a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the revenue authorities regarding declaration of a portion of land owner by predecessor-in-interest of the appellant as surplus under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Briefly the facts are that Daya Singh, father of the petitioner filed a return regarding his and his wife Kartar Kaurs holding of lands under Section 5 of the Act. After scrutinizing the return, the Collector found that the holding in their hands came to 10.12 hectares of first quality land. Out of that they were entitled to 7 hectares of land. Thus 3.12 hectares of land was found to be surplus which the land owners were required to surrender. Daya Singh filed an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner. One of the objections taken by Daya Singh in his appeal was that the land held by his wife Kartar Kaur could not be clubbed with the land held by him. This objection was turned down by the Commissioner. It was observed that according to Section 3(4) of the Act a "family" in relation to a person means a person, wife or husband, as the case may be, of such person and his or her minor children. The appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner. Kartar Kaur wife of Daya Singh died on 9th October, 1980. In 1982, the surplus land was mutated in favour of the State Government and in 1983 it was allotted to third parties.

(2.) On 21st June, 1985 Daya Singh filed an application under Section 11(5) of the Act for re-determination of the land holding in view of death of Kartar Kaur. The Collector vide his order dated 23rd July, 1985 disposed of the said application holding that there was no surplus area of land with Daya Singh. The land declared surplus vide earlier order dated 30th September, 1976 was ordered to be restored to Daya Singh and the mutation in favour of the State Government was cancelled. On 19th May, 1986, the Collector sought permission from the Commissioner to review the order dated 23rd July, 1985. The Commissioner granted the requisite permission on 14th August, 1986. In view of the permission granted to him, the Collector heard the matter all over again and vide his order dated 22nd December, 1986 held that Daya Singh was in possession of surplus land. The order dated 30th September, 1976 passed by the Collector earlier declaring 3.12 hectares of first quality land as surplus was maintained and the Mutation No. 2760 vide which ownership and possession of surplus land was sanctioned in favour of the State Government was restored. Appeal filed by Daya Singh against the said order was dismissed by the Commissioner vide his order dated 11th November, 1987. On 22nd December, 1987, Daya Singh died. Revision filed by Ajmer Kaur (appellant herein) before the Financial Commissioner against the order of Commissioner was dismissed on 27th January, 1994. This order of the Financial Commissioner was challenged in the Punjab and Haryana High Court by way of Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was however dismissed on 3rd October, 1994 permitting the petitioner to approach the Financial Commissioner by way of a Review Petition wherein she could raise all the questions sought to be raised in the Writ Petition. Thus the matter went back to the Financial Commissioner by way of Review applications. The review applications were dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 10th March, 1998. The order of the Financial Commissioner was again challenged by way of Writ Petitions filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. The Writ Petitions were again dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 30th July, 1998. The present appeals are directed against the said orders of the High Court.

(3.) Mr. Manoj Swarup, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised the following points in support of the appeals :