SURAJ KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Financial Commissioner allowing a civil revision filed at the instance of the allottees of properties from the surplus pool. The revision was brought against the order of the Commissioner and the Collector who had respectively upheld the claims of the widow of Amar Singh-the landowner in whose hands the surplus was declared.

(2.) The original declaration had been made on 11.06.1976 on the concurrence of Amar Singh that certain properties could be declared as surplus. After the declaration was made and allotments were said to have been also effected, his wife Suraj Kaur and his grandchildren filed independent appeals against the declaration and contended that they were respectively the owners and donees of properties from Amar Singh before coming into force of the Act on 02.04.1973 and that the mutations had also been effected entering their names in respect of the property so held/alienated. The Commissioner had passed an order on 22.05.1979 setting aside the order of declaration and directed a fresh consideration. The fresh consideration yielded to the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner, referred to above, in the years 1980 and 1983 respectively. They had to contend with an additional fact at the time of remand, namely, of the death of Amar Singh on 16.08.1978 and the effect of succession that had opened. Both the authorities held that there was no surplus in the hands of Amar Singh and such determination could not be made when the proceedings were still not concluded. These orders were set aside by the Financial Commissioner, which are in challenge.

(3.) The counsel appearing on behalf of the allottees would contend that in terms of Section 4(7) of Punjab Land Reforms Act for evaluating the land of any person at any time under the Act, the land held by him before the commencement of the Act and the property that was acquired subsequent to the Act by inheritance, bequest or gift will have to be reckoned and that evaluation will be made as if it was made on the appointed day which was on 24.01.1971. The counsel would therefore urge that the property as on 24.01.1971 alone has to go into computation.