DALIP SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition Challenges The Order Passed By The Authorities Constituted Under The Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. All The Proceedings Were In Relation To The Share Of The Family Of Sucha Singh Whose Holding Had Been Attracted To The Provisions Of Punjab Security Of Land Tenures Act And By A Notification Issued On 16.06.1967, An Extent Of 25 Standard Acre 2 1/2 Unit Was Declared As Surplus. On Death Of Sucha Singh, The Heirs Applied For Fresh Determination Of Surplus Under The Utilization Of Surplus Area Under Section 11(5) Of The 1972 Act. This Was Rejected By The Collector And There Have Been Several Proceedings At Various Higher Forums In Three Distinct Rounds Of Litigation That Ultimately Culminated In The Order Of The Financial Commissioner Holding That The Petitioners Were Not Entitled To Any Consideration For Redetermination Of The Surplus Area. It Is This Order Which Is In Challenge Before This Court.

(2.) The Principal Challenge To The Orders Come On A Plea That On The Appointed Day Mentioned Under The Act Of 1972 Namely On 24.01.1971, There Had Been No Utilization Of The Property Of Surplus Declared. The Law Under Section 6 Mandates Eliciting An Information Regarding Holding In Terms Of Section 5 That Allows For Selection Of The Permissible Area And Furnishing Declaration Of Certain Persons Setting Out A Selection That The Owner Could Make For The Adult Sons. Section 4 Which Details The Manner Of Reckoning Permissible Area, Including A Computation Of Holding For Adult Sons. The Argument Was That Even If The Declaration Had Not Been Given By The Land Owner Himself, A Determination Was Required To Be Made Of The Permissible And The Surplus Area Under Section 7 And The Same Having Not Been Done, The Land Owners Were Entitled To Require The State To Make A Redetermination Of The Surplus Area Under Section 11 (5). The Counsel Would Rely On A Judgment Of Full Bench Of This Court In Ranjit Ram Vs. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab And Others, 1981 83 PunLR 492 That Dealt With The Duties Which Were Cast And The Effect Of The Order Passed By Authorities Without Reference To Section 7 Of The Act. The Counsel Would Make A Pointed Reference To The Observations Of The Full Bench That Reads As Under:-

(3.) The Counsel Would Also Take Me To Yet Another Judgment Of The Full Bench In Ajit Kaur Vs. The Punjab State And Others, 1980 PunLJ 354 That Considered The Effect Of The Provisions Under Section 11 (5) And 11(7) Of The Act And The Requirement Of A Formal Redeclaration Or De-Declaration Of The Surplus Area In The Hands Of The Heirs After The Death Of The Land Owner. The View As Expressed By The Full Bench Is Again Paraphrased In Para 34 Which Is Reproduced As Under:-