G.R. Majitha, J. - (1.) THE precise question that arises for determination is, whether the landowner whose land has been declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, or under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1955, and who has not been divested of the ownership of the surplus area before the commencement of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, is entitled to select permissible area for his family and for each of his adult son in view of the provisions of Section 4 read with Section 5(1) of the Land Reforms Act. It has not been disputed that the surplus area case of the landowner was decided under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (for short the Pepsu Act) and land measuring 16.65 Standard Acres was declared surplus vide order dated 12.2. l963 by the Special Collector, Punjab. The landowner unsuccessfully challenged that order before the Commissioner, Patiala, and the Financial Commissioner Punjab. The order of the Financial Commissioner was challenged by way of writ petition in this Court The subject -matter of dispute raised by the landowner in this Court by way of C.W.P. No. 14 of 1964 was entirely different and distinct than what is being agitated in this writ petition.
(2.) THE Punjab Land Reforms Act (for short the Act) was enforced on April 2, 1973, and the appointed date under the Act had been fixed to be January 24. 1971. In view of provisions of Section 4 read with Section 5(1) of the, Act, a landowner whose land has been declared surplus under the Pepsu Act and who has not yet been divested of the ownership of the surplus area before the commencement of the Act is entitled to select permissible area for his family and for each of his adult son. A landowner will be deemed to have been divested of the ownership of the surplus area if possession of the same has been taken over by the State in pursuance of the order of the Collector under the Pepsu Act. In the present case, reply has been filed on behalf of the Collector, Agrarain, wherein it is conceded that the surplus area case of the landowner was decided by the Special Collector, Punjab, on February 12, 1963, and area measuring 16.65 Standard Acres was declared surplus with the landowner. The possession of the land declared surplus could not be taken on account of the subsequent appeal/revision by the landowner. In view of the categorical admission made by the Collector, Agrarian, that the possession of the surplus land remained with the landowner, the resultant effect will be that the landowner was never divested of the ownership of the surplus land. On the commencement of the Act, the surplus area case had to be determined afresh and he is entitled to select permissible area for his family and for each of his adult son in view of the provisions of Section 4 read with Section 5(1) of the Act. This matter is no more res integra It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Ranjit Ram v. The Financial Commissioner Punjab, (1981) 83 P.L.R. 492 (F.B.). The real object of the enactment of the Punjab Land Reforms Act is to divest the landowner of the ownership of the land more than the permissible area and to distribute the same to landless people. The Legislature took note of the fact that if a landowner's adult son does not own any land or owns land less than the permissible area, the landowner is also entitled to select the permissible area from his land for his adult son. This provision (in Section 5(1) to select separate permissible area in respect of adult son) is also to further the object of the "Act as the land is being given to a landless person even though the landless person happens to be the son of the landowner. Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the private Respondents, who were added as party -Respondents vide order dated March 1, 1985, submits that the surplus land was allotted to them but they could not take possession in view of the stay order granted by the authorities under the Pepsu Act and by the High Court when the order passed by the authorities under the Pepsu Act was challenged in a writ petition. The landowner cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong. He approached the High Court, got a stay order and the allottees could not obtain possession because of the stay. Mr. Tiwari may be right to the extent that the possession could not delivered to his clients because of the stay order granted by this Court Nevertheless, the fact remains that the landowner was not divested of the ownership of the surplus land and in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 4 read with Section 5(1) of the Act he is entitled to select permissible area for his family and for each of his adult son. For the reasons stated supra, this writ petition is allowed, the Collector Agrarian is directed to determine the surplus area of the landowner afresh keeping in view the observations referred to above. The earlier order passed by the Special Collector, Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner have to be ignored while determining the surplus area of the landowner afresh under the provisions of the Act. The parties are left to bear their own costs.;