HARBANS LAL,J - (1.) THIS petition has been moved by Baldev Singh, Bakhshish Singh, Karnail Singh and Bhag Singh sons of Bogha Singh under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned orders, Annexures P-1 to P-3 on the grounds as delineated in the petition.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are that Bogha Singh son of Mohna Singh, resident of Ramgarh, Tehsil Muktsar was a big land owner. His land measuring 6 standard acres 12 units was declared as surplus by the Collector, Ferozepur, on 4.1.1966. Aggrieved with this order, he preferred an appeal to the Commissioner, Jalandhar division, who set aside the order and remanded the case with a direction to scrutinize the matter and after giving an opportunity of being heard to all the concerned, decide the matter afresh with a further direction that the redeemed area under mortgage should be counted in the holding of the landowner and Form 'F' be issued. The appellant was directed by the learned Commissioner to appear before the Collector on 30.1.1968, but he did not appear before the Collector on the aforesaid date. After that, summons were issued for 24.2.1968. The same were received with a report that the landowner had gone to Bathinda. Again summons were issued for 12.3.1968 and 8.4.1968. Then he was summoned for 25.4.1968. The summons were received back with the report that the landowner has refused to accept the same. Ultimately, he was proceeded against ex parte. The learned Collector in the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 23.5.1968 observed that the landowner had got 30 standard acres 7 units on 15.4.1953. Later on, he redeemed an area of 6 standard acres 15 units and his total holdings became 37 standard acres 6 units. After consolidation operations, the holdings increased to 38 standard acres 6 units. Ultimately, the land measuring 122 K 3M was declared as surplus. The petitioners carried appeal, Annexure P-2 to the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. He dismissed the same. The Financial Commissioner- respondent vide Annexure P-3 also dismissed the revision. The respondents, in their joint written statement, have inter-alia pleaded that it was never brought to the notice of the Commissioner during the pendency of the appeal that Bogha Singh landowner had died on 2.12.1975 and, consequently, the Commissioner dismissed the same as being time barred as well as on merits. The land was inherited by the petitioners as well as their brother Balbir Singh through mutation No. 1491 and 1562 respectively. The surplus area vested in State Government through mutation No. 1437 dated 19.7.1974 and the same was allotted to the tenants. The possession of the same was also delivered to the respondents No. 4 and 5 vide Rapat Report of the Patwari bearing No. 167 and 168 dated 19.1.1979. The inheritance qua the land of Bogha Singh deceased was decided on 15.10.1976 and 24.7.1979 vice mutations No. 1491 and 1562 respectively in favour of the petitioners as well as their another brother Balbir Singh. The surplus area was vested in the State Government through mutation 1437 dated 19.7.1974 and the same was allotted to the tenants. Therefore, the petitioners (heirs of big landowner) cannot be given the benefit as provided under Section 11(7) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 as the surplus area had vested in the State Government under Section 8 of the said Act, and this petition may be dismissed with costs.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the impugned orders with due care and caution.;