DAYA CHAUDHARY,J - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 20.10.1977 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, order dated 30.6.1978 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Additional Commissioner and orders dated 4.12.1981 and 12.5.1983 (Annexures P-3 and P-4) passed by the Financial Commissioner.
(2.) IN concise, the facts of the case as mentioned in the writ petition are that Brij Kumar, the land owner died in the year 1960 leaving behind him his widow Pamela Devi (Petitioner No. 1), daughter Preeti (Petitioner No. 2) and son Ajay Kumar (Petitioner No. 3). Petitioner No. 2-Preeti was born on 29.3.1953 and petitioner No. 3-Ajay Kumar was born on 6.8.1958. The returns of the land were filed by Pamela Devi-widow and daughter Preeti and the total holding of the family was converted into land of first quality which came to 16.77 hectares. Out of both, none of the children was major on the "appointed day" and the widow Pamela Devi was entitled to keep one unit of land as her permissible area. After leaving seven hectares of land as permissible area of the land owner, remaining 9.77 hectares of first quality of land was declared surplus by the Collector Agrarian, Gurdaspur vide order dated 20.101977. The land owner went in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Jallandhar Division, Jallandhar, who vide his order dated 30.6.1978 dismissed the same against which the Revision Petition was filed before Financial Commissioner and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 4.12.1981. The review petition filed by the petitioners against the order of the Financial Commissioner was also dismissed vide order dated 12.5.1983. The present writ petition has been filed by the legal heirs of Brij Kumar (land owner) and challenged the orders passed by the authorities below.
(3.) MR . M.L. Sarin, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has argued that the impugned orders are unjust, illegal, void and without jurisdiction as Preeti-petitioner No. 2 was major on the date when the Act came into force i.e. 2.4.1973 and she was not a member of the family as defined in Section 3(4) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act No. 10 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") that neither a major son nor a major daughter of a person is a member of family. Section 3(4) of the Act is reproduced as under :- "3(4) " Family" in relation to a person means, the person, the wife or husband, as the case may be, of such person and his or her minor children other than a married minor daughter". ;