RAM MURTI Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the petitioner has challenged the order of the Authorities under Section 9(i) and 9(ii) passed under the Punjab Land Reforms Act taking possession of the surplus land of the petitioner. Brief facts are that the husband of the petitioner namely Sh. Hanuman (deceased) was a big land owner and his surplus area case under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 was determined by the Collector (Agrarian) in the year 1966 after allowing 30 st. acres to the land owners as his permissible area and remaining 32 st. acres was declared as surplus. Sh. Hanuman died in the year 1967 and the land declared surplus to the tune of 32 standard acres was not utilized till 1980 and petitioner alongwith her sons preferred an appeal before the Commissioner against the order of 1966 on the ground that land was not utilized and the landowner had died and in view of 1980 P.L.J. Page 121 benefit should be given to the legal heirs. On 7.11.1980 Commissioner accepted the appeal of the petitioner and declared her to be a small landowner. Sh. Hanuman died before coming into force of Punjab Land Reforms Act and his land developed upon the petitioner and other legal representatives and petitioner furnished a valid declaration as per provisions of Punjab Land Reforms act and on 28.05.1986 Collector in view of the orders passed by the Commissioner dated 7.4.1980 filed the case being no surplus land in her hands. On 27.09.1989 Collector after reviewing the order dated 28.05.1986 declared land measuring 56837 hectare of 1st quality as surplus. In view of order dated 27.09.1989 respondent No. 3 issued a notice under Section 9(i) under Punjab Land Reforms Act to the petitioner to deliver the possession of the lands within 10 days after the receipt of notice and petitioner filed objection against the said notice on the ground that the Commissioner Ferozepur Division vide order dated 7th April, 1980 had already declared the petitioner as small landowner. Her plea having been rejected upto the level of Financial Commissioner the present petition has been filed.

(2.) UPON notice respondent appeared but failed to file written statement despite availing numerous opportunities.

(3.) THE main argument of the learned counsel is that the order declaring the area as surplus was non est since in an earlier proceeding it was held that there was no surplus area in the hands of the petitioner.