- (1.) Some land of respondent No. 4-Kaushalya Devi-big land owner was declared surplus by Collector (Agrarian)-respondent No. 3 vide order dated 24.05.1984 (Annexure P-3). Petitioner No. 1-Phula Singh challenged the said order by filing appeal before the Commissioner-respondent No. 2 alleging that Phuman Singh, father of all the six petitioners (appellant respondents No. 3 to 7 before the Commissioner), had purchased part of the land declared surplus, before enforcement of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, (in short, the 'Act') and, therefore, the said land could not be included in surplus area of the big land owner. However, the Commissioner respondent No. 2 vide order dated 21.10.1985 (Annexure P-4) dismissed the appeal preferred by petitioner No. 1. Revision petition preferred by all the petitioners has also been dismissed by Financial Commissioner, (Appeals)- respondent No. 1 vide order dated 23.06.1989 (Annexure P-5). All the aforesaid orders (Annexures P-3 to P-5) passed by respondents No. 1 to 3 are under challenge in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
(2.) Perusal of mutation (Annexure P-10) reveals that Phuman Singh father of the petitioners had purchased 6 kanals 6 Marlas or 6 Bighas 6 Biswas land from respondent No. 4-big land owner pursuant to order dated 28.09.1960 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, being tenant over the said land. Since the said land was purchased by petitioners' father long before enforcement of the Act (appointed day being 24.01.1971), the said land could not have been declared surplus in the hands of respondent No. 4-big land owner who was not owner thereof on the appointed day. Respondents No. 1 and 2 committed grave error and illegality in rejecting the revision petition and appeal preferred by petitioners on the ground that they had been duly served in the surplus proceedings. However, even if the petitioners did not appear before respondent No. 3-Collector (Agrarian) in surplus proceedings, their appeal and revision could not have been dismissed merely on this ground. The same were required to be decided on merits. However, respondents No. 1 and 2 refused to go into the merits of the case merely on the ground that petitioners had been served with notice of surplus proceedings by Munadi and in spite thereof, they did not appear before the Collector (Agrarian). On the other hand, even in the written statement, official respondents No. 1 to 3 have admitted that details of land of respondent No. 4-big land owner prepared by Field Staff before passing of order (Annexure P-3) by respondent No. 3 were not correct, being not in accordance with jamabandi.
(3.) In view of admitted facts, there is no escape from the conclusion that the land mutated in favour of the petitioners' father vide mutation (Annexure P-10) could not have been included in surplus area of respondent No. 4. As a necessary corollary, the instant writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders (Annexures P-3 to P-5) passed by respondent No. 1 to 3 are set aside to the extent of including the land purchased by petitioners' father-Phuman Singh as depicted in mutation (Annexure P-10) in surplus area of respondent No. 4-big land owner. Petitioners are held to be owners thereof being legal heirs of Phuman Singh who had purchased it being tenant thereon.;