145 Kashmiri Lal (deceased) through his LRs & ors. ...... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & ors. ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN *** Present :- Mr. P.K.Ganga, Advocate for the petitioners. *** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) By way of present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India petitioners seek writ in the nature of mandamus directing official respondents to handover the physical possession of land allotted to them vide order dated 22.11.1975 (Annexure P-5). 2 As discernable from the pleadings raised in the writ petition one Tek Chand son of Lekh Raj was found to be a big land owner. Vide order dated 02.04.1961 passed by Collector, Ferozepur certain lands in hands of Tek Chand were declared to be surplus. Petitioners claim that out of the surplus land so declared they were allotted land vide order dated 03.12.1975 (Annexure P-5). 3 However, it is evident from the writ petition that the order declaring land in the hands of Tek Chand surplus was assailed before this Court in CWP No.2384 of 1978 which was decided vide order dated 29.11.1996 observing as under :- “In the light of the above discussion, the present writ petition stands allowed and the impugned orders (Annexures P3, P5 and P7) are POOJA SHARMA 2026.07.23 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document hereby quashed. Directions are given afresh to the Collector (Agrarian), Ferozepur, to redetermine the surplus area case of respondent Tek Chand (deceased) as per the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, and while redetermining the surplus area case, the area which has been purchased by the present petitioners from Tek Chand deceased under the two sale deeds, relied upon by them, must be excluded. There will, however, be no order as to costs.” 4 The writ petition is totally bereft of any details regarding what happened after 29.11.1996. 5 Counsel for the petitioners submits that thereafter an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 was filed before the authorities to ascertain the status of surplus land after its redetermination thereof in terms of the order dated 29.11.1996. State authorities have, however, replied that the record has been lost. 6 Be that as it may, this Court finds that the order dated 03.12.1975 being passed on the premises that the land in the hands of Tek Chand is surplus and the said orders having been set aside by this Court vide order dated 29.11.1996, the petitioners cannot claim their entitlement on the basis of the same. 7 Finding no merits in the present writ petition, the same is ordered to be dismissed. ( PANKAJ JAIN ) 22.07.2026 JUDGE Pooja Sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2026.07.23 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document