RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. - (1.) Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.7.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab-respondent no.2, whereby claim of the petitioners, being vendees of original big land-owners was declined to be protected, as the petitioners were not found bona fide purchasers, because they purchased the land much after it had already been declared surplus in the hands of their vendors.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
(3.) Placing reliance on three judgements of this court in Hanuman v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab, 1997 (1) RCR (Civil) 496, Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab through Secretary to Govt., Revenue Deptt., Punjab,Chandigarh and others, 2004 (2) RCR (Civil) 724 and Paramjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2015 (7) RCR (Civil) 706, besides placing reliance on Full Bench judgement of this court in Sardara Singh and others v. Financial Commissioner and others, 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 744, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners were vendees of Gurmeet Singh, who purchased the land from original land owner Pritpal Singh and possession from them was not taken, their rights would be protected because they were small land owners. Had the surplus area case been redetermined in the hands of the petitioners, there would be no surplus land in their hands. He further submits that since the Financial Commissioner has failed to consider each and every material aspect of the matter, while passing the impugned order, the same is liable to be set aside. In this regard, he also places reliance on another judgement of this court in Kuldip Singh (through LRs) and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 672. He prays for setting aside the impugned order, by allowing the present writ petition.;