K. Kannan, J. - (1.) The only point for consideration in all the above writ petitions is whether the legal heirs of the last owner will be barred from pleading of issue of succession and lose his right to seek for determination of the holding by the only fact that the property was treated as surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act of 1953, although the property remained unutilized. The Collector had reasoned that in order that succession might operate favourably for the heirs for seeking redetermination, the succession itself must have opened prior to 22.12.1972 and since in the present case the death of the landowner had taken place on 18.11.1978, the heirs cannot make such a plea. Yet another issue arising specifically in CWP No.1960 of 1991 was when the Collector had already found through his determination on 29.07.1980 that succession had operated to cause devolution of the holding of the landowner to his legal heirs and there was no property that could be treated as surplus, the Financial Commissioner made a suo motu revision nearly 8 years later. The question again was whether the Financial Commissioner enjoyed such a power after such a long time.
(2.) The vesting of surplus operates under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act of 1972 Act under Section 12. The language employed under Section 12 would require to be reproduced: "12. VESTING OF SURPLUS AREA. (1) The surplus area of a landowner shall, (from the date on which it is declared as such shall be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government for a public purpose) (Vide Act No. 17 of 1976) and all rights, title and interest (including the contingent interest, if any, recognised by any law, custom or usage for the time being in force) of all persons in such area shall stand extinguished and such rights, title and interest shall vest in the State Government free from any encumbrance: Provided that where any land within the permissible area of the mortgagor is mortgaged with possession and falls within the surplus area of the mortgagee, only the mortgagee rights shall be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and the same shall vest in it. (2) The right and interest of the tenant in his surplus area which is included within the permissible area of the landowner shall stand extinguished. (3) The area declared surplus or tenant's permissible area under the Punjab law and the area declared surplus under the Pepsu Law, which has not so far vested in the State Government, shall be deemed to have vested in the State Government with effect from the appointed day and the area which may be so declared under the Punjab Law or Pepsu Law after the appointed day shall be deemed to have vested in the State Government with effect from the date of such declaration.(Vide Act No. 40 of 1976) (4) For the purpose of determining the surplus area under this Act, any judgment, decree or order of a court or other authority, obtained after the appointed day and having the effect of diminishing the surplus area shall be ignored."
(3.) The opening of Section 12 shows that the surplus of the landowner shall be directed for consideration for determination of surplus only from the date it is declared as such surplus. The declaration shall be the date when the Collector makes a declaration under the Act. This declaration again must be a final declaration which has survived the right of an appeal or revision as provided under the Act itself. This is not the date of the Act that determines what the surplus should be. On the other hand, it is the Collector's declaration that assumes significance for determination of the surplus. Consequently, before such a declaration takes place and the property is treated as surplus, if the landowner dies, the determination has to be inevitably done in the hands of the legal heirs. The Financial Commissioner was in patent error in holding that after the death had taken place subsequent to the Act, no matter that there was no utilisation of the land, the issue of inheritance must be ignored. This runs counter to a Full Bench ruling of this Court in Sardara Singh and others v. The Financial Commissioner and others, 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 744 . Although held under the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, the Full Bench was interpreting provisions relating to the effect of inheritance and the vesting of surplus area in the State on the date when it was declared. The State shall not be heard to vex the Court on the same issue of what is finally determined through several decisions of this Court. The power of revision must also be exercised within a reasonable time. A revision undertaken by the State after 8 years after the Collector's decision, that after existed no surplus a brazen wrong interpretation of law after the matter is settled through several decisions of the Court and it is a needless waste of time. All the writ petitions are allowed with cost assessed at Rs. 10,000/- each against the State. Petition allowed.;