06.11.2025 CWP-3825- -1994 (O&M) Angrez Singh Singh and another s v. Financial Com Commissioner
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN T AT CHANDIGAR UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 25 Date of decision :06.11.2025 CWP-3825- -1994 (O&M) Angrez Singh Singh and another s …Petitioners Versus Financial Com Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab an njab and another …Respondents CWP-3826- -1994 (O&M) Darshan Sing n Singh and others ners …Petitioners Versus Financial Com ial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab an njab and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HA E HARSH BUNGER Present : Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate, Mr. Sohailbir Singh Sidhu, Advo Mr. Atul Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (in both the c th the cases). , Advocate and Mr. Harpreet Singh, AAG, Punja , Punjab. HARSH BUN H BUNGER, J. This order shall spose dispose of two writ petitions tions i.e. CWP-38 3825-1994 and CWP-3826-1994 mon 1994 as both involve common question of la n of law and facts. 1.1 Prayer in CWP-3825-1994 is fo ated is for setting aside the order dated 04.11.1986 ( 986 (Annexure P-1) passed by the rian), y the learned Collector (Agrarian), Ferozepur; or pur; order dated 08.06.1989 (Annexu rned nnexure P-2) passed by the learned
Legal Reasoning
GURPREET KAUR 2025.11.11 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh 7 Page 1 of 7 Commissione issioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepu 1994 rozepur and order dated 03.02.1994 (Annexure P ure P-3) passed by the learned Finan eals), Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab passed passed in ROR No.484 of 1988-89. 1.2 Prayer in CWP-3826-1994 is fo ated is for setting aside the order dated 07.10.1986 ( 986 (Annexure P-1) passed by the rian), y the learned Collector (Agrarian), Ferozepur; or pur; order dated 08.06.1989 (Annexu rned nnexure P-2) passed by the learned Commissione issioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepu 1994 rozepur and order dated 03.02.1994 (Annexure P ure P-3) passed by the learned Finan eals), Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab passed passed in ROR No.483 of 1988-89. 2. Briefly, the surplus area cas
Legal Reasoning
a case of one Smt. Bhagwanti anti @ Balwant want Kaur wife of Narayan Singh the Singh came to be decided by the authorities un ties under the Punjab Land Reforms 1972 forms Act, 1972 (in short `the 1972 Act’) vide o vide order dated 29.09.1976 (Anne 4.53 (Annexure R-3) whereby, 2.74.53 hectares of f s of first quality land was declared lared surplus with Smt. Bhagwanti anti @ Balwant K ant Kaur wife of Narayan Singh, th
Decision
order gh, the relevant extract of the order reads as unde s under :- “Smt. Bhagwanti Alias B ain as Balwant Kaur Wife of Narain Singh resident of V. Koer Sin rict Singh Wala, Tehsil and District Ferozepur, has furnished decla the declaration in Form-A under the Provisions of Section 5(1) of t Act of the Punjab Land Reforms Act 1972. According to the declara as claration furnished by her and as certified by the Circle Revenue her nue Officer, the application of her husband and sons owned lan in land measuring 507 Kanals in Village Koer Singh Wala, Te ge , Tehsil Ferozepur and Village Ghugiana Tehsil Faridkot o t on viz the appointed day viz 24.01.1971. According to the en for e entries in Khasra Girdawari for Rabi and Kharif 1970, the class by classification of the land owned by the applicant is as under:- GURPREET KAUR 2025.11.11 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Nehri Barani 208K-9M 298K-2M 7 Page 2 of 7 Gair Mumkin 1K-3M When converted into the land nd nd of first quality, the total land owned by the applicant comes to es to 11.14.53 hectares. 2. As verified by the circle ant cle Revenue Officer the applicant has six family members including uding, herself. 3. As provided U/s 4(1) of t ct, of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 the applicant upto five me to e members of family is entitled to retain permissible area upto 7 lity to 7 hectares of the first quality land. One additional members o to ers of the family is also entitled to retain area upto 1.40 hectares. ily res. The applicant and her family members are, therefore, entitle irst ntitled to retain land of the first quality upto 8.40 hectares. Obvi .53 Obviously, land measuring 2.74.53 hectares of the first quality is s nd is surplus with the applicant and the same is hereby declared a has ed as surplus. The applicant has promised to furnish the details o in ils of surplus land to be placed in 76. the surplus pool on 05.10.1976. 4. The land already declare jab lared surplus, if under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1 nd ct 1953, shall remain surplus and shall not be affected by this orde order.” 2.1 It transpires that Smt. Bhagwa fe of hagwanti @ Balwant Kaur wife of Narayan Sing n Singh failed to provide the details o laced tails of the khasra nos. to be placed into the surp e surplus pool, accordingly, the learn order e learned Collector passed an order dated 12.10.1 2.10.1976 (Annexure R-4) whereby, h os. reby, he directed specific khasra nos. measuring 95 95 kanal-1 marla to be placed in vant ced in the surplus pool, the relevant extract of the of the order reads as under :- “The surplus area cas ias case of Smt. Bhagwanti Alias Balwant Kaur wife of Narain S oer in Singh resident of Village Koer Singh Wala Tehsil and District me rict Ferozepur, was decided by me under Section 5(1) of the Punja on unjab Land Reforms Act 1972, on 29.09.1976, when land measurin irst suring 2.74.53 hectares of the first quality equivalent to 95 Kanals 1 ani als 1 Marla of Chahi/Nehri/berani 95-1 7 Page 3 of 7 GURPREET KAUR 2025.11.11 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh land situated in the revenue esta ala estate of village Koer Singh Wala was declared surplus with th ant th the applicant. The applicant promised to furnish the detail be etails of Khasra Numbers to be placed in the surplus pool on 0 urn on 05.10.1976, but he did not turn up. So I order that land measuri irst suring 2.74.53 hectares of the first quality equivalent to 95 Kanals sra nals 1 Marla comprising, Khasra No.77M/23(8-0) nehri, 24(8-0) 9 0) nehri, 25(8-0) nehri, 83M 9 (8-0) nehri, 12(8-0) Nehri, 94 hri, , 94M/3(8-0) nehri, 4(8-0) nehri, 6(7-11) nehri, 7(8-0) nehri, hri, ri, 8(8-0) nehri, 14(8-0) nehri, 15/1min (2-0) nehri, 101M/19(4 1 9(4-0) nehri, 22/1(1-10) total 95-1 Nehri. Situated within the revenue esta ala estate of Village Koer Singh Wala Tehsil and District Ferozepur, i lus ur, is hereby placed in the surplus pool. Notice U/s 9(1) of the Punj ven Punjab Land Reforms Act be given to the applicant directing him to nd m to deliver possession of the land to the Circle Revenue Officer w t of er within ten days of the receipt of this notice.” 2.2 Thereafter, the learned Collec tices Collector, Agrarian served notices under Section ection 9(1) of the 1972 Act upon An ingh on Angrej Singh and Resham Singh (petitioners in ners in CWP-3825-1994) and also up ukh upon Darshan Singh, Gurmukh Singh and Gu nd Gurcharan Singh (petitioners in CW CWP-3826-1994). 2.3 It appears that the petitioners in d not ers in both the writ petitions did not respond to the to the afore-said notices, accordingly order dingly, learned Collector, vide order dated 04.11.1 04.11.1986 (Annexure P-1 in CWP ated WP-3825-1994) and order dated 07.10.1986 ( 986 (Annexure P-1 in CWP-3826 ircle 3826-1994) directed the Circle Revenue Offi e Officer to proceed in the matter un 1972 tter under Section 9(2) of the 1972 Act and to fur to further take possession of the land e land declared surplus. 2.4 Feeling aggrieved inst against the above-referred orders rders (Annexure P ure P-1 in both the writ petitions), th erred ns), the petitioners therein preferred their separate parate appeals before the learned Com hich ed Commissioner, Ferozepur, which GURPREET KAUR 2025.11.11 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh 7 Page 4 of 7 came to be di be dismissed vide separate orders da 2 ers dated 08.06.1989 (Annexure P-2 in both the wr the writ petitions). 2.5 Still aggrieved, the petitioners p ision ners preferred their separate revision petitions befo s before the learned Financial Comm came Commissioner, however, both came to be dismiss ismissed vide common order dated 3 in dated 03.02.1994 (Annexure P-3 in both the writ e writ petitions). Hence, the present wr ent writ petitions. 3. Learned counsel for the petition rities etitioner submits that the authorities below have e have erred in law and fact in passin It is passing the impugned orders. It is submitted tha ted that the authorities have not com s of ot complied with the provisions of Section 13 of 13 of the 1972 Act. It is further subm ion 5 r submitted that in terms of Section 5 of the 1972 1972 Act, the land owner is entitled ea in ntitled to select permissible area in respect of eac of each of his adult sons out of the lan r, no the land owned by him, however, no such course w urse was adopted in the present case at no nt case. It is next submitted that no notice under under Section 9(1) of the 1972 Act e the 2 Act could be served because the surplus area area case of the petitioners is yet also is yet to be determined. It is also submitted tha ted that the order passed by the learn g the e learned Collector determining the surplus area i area in the hands of Smt. Bhagwanti le in wanti is illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of la s of law. 3.1 With the aforesaid submissions for issions, prayer has been made for setting aside t aside the impugned orders. 4. Per contra, learned State couns esaid counsel has opposed the aforesaid submissions sions raised on behalf of the petitio t the petitioners. It is submitted that the notices under under Section 9(1) of the 1972 Act w rs in Act were issued to the petitioners in respect of th of the surplus area of Smt. Bha ated t. Bhagwanti, as the order dated 29.09.1976 (A 976 (Annexure R-3) and order dated 4) r dated 12.10.1976 (Annexure R-4) declaring 95 ng 95 Kanal-1 Marla area comprised rs as rised in specific khasra numbers as GURPREET KAUR 2025.11.11 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh 7 Page 5 of 7 surplus has a has attained finality. He submits th aring mits that once the orders declaring surplus area area in the hands of Smt. Bhagwa , the hagwanti have attained finality, the petitioners c ers cannot be permitted to re-ope the open those proceedings in the consequential uential proceedings initiated under Sec hich er Section 9 of the 1972 Act, which provides for s s for seeking possession of the land de 2 land declared surplus under the 1972 Act. Accordin cordingly, prayer for dismissal of the of the writ petitions has been made. 5. 6. Heard. Evidently, the surplus area case to be case of Smt. Bhagwanti came to be decided by th by the authorities under the 1972 acted 1972 Act vide the above extracted order dated dated 29.09.1976 (Annexure R-3) ated 3). Further, vide order dated 12.10.1976 (A 976 (Annexure R-4), 95 Kanal-1 Ma cific 1 Marla area comprised in specific khasra numbe numbers was placed in the surplus p er to plus pool. Subsequently, in order to take possessi ssession of the area/khasra numbers and mbers already declared surplus and placed in the in the surplus pool, proceedings und Act s under Section 9 of the 1972 Act were initiated itiated; wherein the orders impugned tions pugned in the present writ petitions assed. were passed. 6.1 As regards the contention of t - n of the petitioners regarding non- compliance o ance of Section 13 of the 1972 Act is c that ct is concerned, suffice it to say that the said pro id provision would not be attracte and ttracted in the peculiar facts and circumstances stances of this case, especially the f ated the fact that vide an order dated 12.10.1976 (A 976 (Annexure R-4), specific khasra the khasra numbers were placed in the surplus pool a pool and the proceedings under Sectio only Section 9 of the 1972 Act were only with regard to bers. gard to those specific khasra numbers. 6.2 As regards the submission of land on of the petitioners that the land owner was en was entitled to select permissible area /her le area in respect of each of his/her adult son, suf n, suffice it to say that the petitioners any ioners have not placed on record any GURPREET KAUR 2025.11.11 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh 7 Page 6 of 7 material in su l in support of the said contention a terial tion and in the absence of material particulars, th lars, the said submission is rejected. 6.3 As regards the plea of the pet nder he petitioners that no notice under Section 9 of 9 of the 1972 Act could be served their served upon the petitioners as their surplus area c area case is yet to be determined; it is ings it is observed that the proceedings in the instant nstant case do not relate to the petition spect etitioners but the same are in respect of the surplus rplus area case determination of Smt aur. of Smt. Bhagwanti @ Balwant Kaur. Accordingly, ingly, the said plea of the petitioners is ners is also rejected. 6.4 As regards the contention of th er of of the petitioners that the order of the Collector llector determining the surplus area in anti area in the hands of Smt. Bhagwanti is illegal; su al; suffice it to say that the said gr the said ground is not available to the petitioners as ers as the order dated 29.09.1976 (A ated 76 (Annexure R-3) and order dated 12.10.1976 (A 976 (Annexure R-4) declaring surpl Smt. surplus area in the hands of Smt. Bhagwanti ha has attained finality and nothing been thing contrary to the same has been shown to this to this Court. 7. 8. No other argument has been raise n raised. Upon considering the totality of merit lity of circumstances, I find no merit in the instant nstant writ petitions and the same are a e are accordingly, dismissed. 9. 10. All pending applications (if any) if any) shall also stand closed. Photocopy of this order be placed placed on the connected case file. November 06 gurpreet/Him ber 06, 2025 /Himani (HARSH BUNGER) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No GURPREET KAUR 2025.11.11 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh 7 Page 7 of 7