CWP-7106-2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7106-2000 Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Pokhar Ram …Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 18.08.1999 whereby Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab has dismissed his ROR No.187 of 1993-84. 2. The Collector, Fazilka declared 33 SA 8 Units as surplus area of Prem Nath son of Kundan Lal resident of village Sappanwali, Tehsil Abhor, District Ferozepur. 30 SA was left as reserved area of the landowner. After consolidation of the holdings, the surplus area was reduced to 32 SA 7-1/4 Units. The Special Collector (Agrarian) Ferozepur vide order dated 27.03.1991 separated share of Prem Nath from joint Khata in terms of Section 24A(1) of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short ‘1953 Act’). Prem Nath was joint owner with Kaushalya Devi. In the order of Collector, 2 SA 5 ½ units area was left for tenants. Notice under Section 9 MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.26 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-7106-2000 -2- of Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (for short ‘1972 Act’) was issued to landowners to hand over possession of surplus area. 3. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner assailing order of Collector on the ground that he had purchased land measuring 56 Kanals through a registered sale deed from a Hindu Education Society for valuable consideration. He was in actual cultivation of the land as tenant since 1952-53. The Collector (Agrarian) has wrongly put his land in the surplus area of Prem Nath. The Commissioner vide order dated 11.12.1993 dismissed his appeal. He further preferred revision which came to be dismissed by Financial Commissioner by order dated 18.08.1999. 4. The petitioner, before the Authorities, claimed that Ishar Ram along with his brother Bagh Ram and Attu Ram were tenants of Kaushalya Devi even much prior to 1952-53. Surplus area case of Kaushalya Devi was determined by Collector on 12.04.1984. The land cultivated by tenants was declared tenants permissible area in the hands of Kaushalya Devi. She gifted this land to a Hindu Education Society. Ishar Ram and his brother remained tenants of the society. At a later stage, society sold gifted land to Bagh Ram and Attu Ram through registered sale deed dated 22.10.1986. In the sale deed, it was noticed that land is already with Ishar Ram brother of the vendees. In the jamabandi for the year 1983-84, mutation of ownership was changed in the name of vendees. The petitioner exchanged this land with Bagh Ram and Attu Ram and in this way, the petitioner stepped into shoes of vendees/tenants. The mutation of exchange was recorded in revenue record. The Financial Commissioner rejected all the contentions of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner-Pokhar Ram has no locus standi. He MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.26 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-7106-2000 -3- has failed to prove tenancy. The relevant extracts of the order dated 18.08.1999 read as: - “I have carefully perused the record of the case including surplus area file of Prem Nath as well as Kaushalya Devi, have gone through the detailed order dated 27.3.1991 of Special Collector Agrarian, Ferozepur, Headquarters at Fazilka, Camp Abohar and the detailed orders passed by Commissioner, Ferozepur Division on 11.12.1993 in appeal filed by the present petitioner. A perusal the record makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner has not been in possession of land as claimed by him continuously since 1952-53. This is evident from the revenue record available in the file. During the course of the arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Kaushalya Devi had gifted the land in dispute to the Hindu Education Society. The present petitioner at no stage was a tenant under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and as such was not entitled to purchase that land under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. It seems that he has resorted to circumvent by exchanging this land with Bagh Ram and Attu Ram who in turn had purchased this land from the Hindu Education Society through a registered sale deed. If the transfer of land is permitted then it will defeat the very purpose of legislation pertaining to Land Reforms Act, 1972. An attempt has been made on the part of the landowner to gift the land to the Hind Education Society which was not part of their reserved area at any stage either of Prem Nath or of Kaushlaya Devi. It is unnatural for Pokhar Ram to determine whether this land was Prem Nath's or Kaushalya Devi's surplus area. Only the question to be determined is the locus standi of Pokhar Ram. Assuming hypothetically for the sake of argument that this land was part of tenants permissible area of either Prem Nath or Kaushalya Devi, it is totally immaterial so far as the claim of Pokhar Ram is concerned. MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.26 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-7106-2000 -4- The order of Special Collector Agrarian, Ferozepur, Headquarters at Fazilka, Camp Abohar, is detailed, cogent, logical and based on provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. As the order has rightly been upheld by the learned Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, I find no merit whatsoever in the claim of Pokhar Ram. His petition is, therefore, dismissed. The Collector will continue to proceed further in the matter under Section 9(1) and 9(2) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 to get the surplus area vested in the State, if not already done so.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner stepped into the shoes of tenants of Kaushalya Devi who had purchased land in question from Hindu Education Society. There was a registered gift deed in favour of the society which sold land in question to tenants of Kaushalya Devi. Surplus area of Kaushalya Devi was determined in April’ 1984 and at that point of time land in question was not declared surplus area. The transaction between Kaushalya Devi and society and thereafter, between the society and tenants as well as petitioner and tenants took place in 1986 whereas surplus area of Prem Nath was determined in March’ 1991. The land in question belongs to Kaushalya Devi, thus, there was no question to declare it surplus in the hands of Prem Nath. The petitioner is still in possession and as per judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ujjagar Singh (dead) by L.Rs v. The Collector, Bhatinda, (1996) 5 SCC 14, the status of land needs to be redetermined in terms of 1972 Act. 6. Learned State counsel submits that act of the petitioner was just a camouflage. The land in question was actually owned by Prem Nath, thus, it was rightly declared surplus in his hand. The petitioner, in connivance MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.26 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-7106-2000 -5- with others just to save land from being declared surplus, entered into circular transaction. Kaushalya Devi gifted land to the Hindu Education Society despite the fact that it was an agricultural land. The said society sold land to tenant of Kaushalya Devi and the petitioner exchanged his land with land of tenants of Kaushalya Devi. 7. On being asked, learned State counsel expressed his inability to controvert the fact that Authorities have not determined question of ownership of land while declaring surplus in the hands of Prem Nath. He further expressed his inability to controvert that land in question is still in the possession of the petitioner. 8. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides and perused the record with their able assistance. 9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that disputed land is in possession of the petitioner since 1986. He is cultivating the land. If the Revenue Officer comes to a conclusion that possession of the land was taken over, the petitioner would not claim his ownership over the land. 10. From the perusal of record especially order passed by Revisionary Authority, it cannot be concluded whether land in question was owned by Kaushalya Devi or by Prem Nath. This fact is relevant to ascertain especially when it was a joint land and order with respect to surplus area of Kaushalya Devi was passed on 12.04.1984 whereas order with respect to surplus land of Prem Nath was passed on 27.03.1991. The parties entered MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.26 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-7106-2000 -6- into transactions during the intervening period. This fact needs to be ascertained by revenue authorities. 11. The impugned orders were passed under 1953 Act and 1972 Act came into force w.e.f. 24.01.1971. The petitioner is claiming that possession was never taken over, thus, his claim is squarely covered by judgment of Ujjagar Singh (supra). 12. A five-Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Ujjagar Singh (supra), has considered scope of Pepsu Act vis-à-vis 1972 Act. The Court has held that as per Section 32-E and 32-F of Pepsu Act, land which has been declared as surplus shall be deemed to be surplus when State Government takes over possession of the land. If possession of any surplus area of landowner has not been taken by or on behalf of the State Government, it shall not be deemed that such surplus area has been acquired and title of the land owner has been extinguished. The relevant extracts of the judgment are reproduced as below: - “3. Section 3 of the Pepsu Act fixed the permissible limit for holding the land at thirty standard acres. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 provided the procedure for computing the permissible limit under sub-section (1) of Section 3. In view of Section 5 every landowner owning land exceeding thirty standard acres was entitled to select for personal cultivation from the land held by him as a landowner which was to be reserved for his personal cultivation. Section 6 required the Collector to notify in such form and manner as may be prescribed the particulars of all lands so reserved for personal cultivation of the landowner concerned under Section 5 aforesaid. Section 32-E which is relevant provided: MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.26 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-7106-2000 -7- “32-E. Vesting of surplus area in the State Government.—Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, custom or usage for the time being in force, and subject to the provisions of Chapter IV, as from the date on which the final statement in respect of a landowner or tenant is published in the Official Gazette, then— (a) in the case of the surplus area of a landowner, or in the case of the surplus area of a tenant which is not included within the permissible limit of the landowner, such area shall, on the date on which possession thereof is taken by or on behalf of the State Government, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government for a public purpose and all rights, title and interest including the contingent interest, if any, recognised by any law, custom or usage for the time being in force of all persons in such land shall be extinguished, and such rights, title and interest shall vest in the State Government free from encumbrances created by any person; and (b) in the case of the surplus area of a tenant which is included within the permissible limit of the landowner, the rights and interest of the tenant in such area shall stand terminated: Provided that, for the purposes of clause (a), where any land falling within the surplus area is mortgaged with possession, only the mortgage rights shall vest in the State Government.” Section 32-F enabled the Collector to take possession of the surplus area so declared: MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.26 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-7106-2000 -8- “32-F. Power to take possession of surplus area.—(1) The Collector may by order in writing at any time after the date on which the final statement in respect of a landowner or tenant is published in the Official Gazette, direct the landowner or the tenant or any other person in possession thereof within ten days of the service of the order on him to such person as may be specified in the order. (2) If the landowner or the tenant or any other person in possession of the surplus area refuses or fails without reasonable cause to comply with the order made under sub-section (1), the Collector may take possession of the surplus area and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary.” On a plain reading of clause (a) of Section 32-E aforesaid it appears that in case any surplus area of the landowner which is not included within the permissible limit of such landowner “such area shall, on the date on which possession thereof is taken by or on behalf of the State Government, be deemed to have been acquired” by the State Government for public purpose and all rights, title and interest of all persons in such land shall be extinguished and such rights, title and interest shall vest in the State Government free from encumbrances. In other words, in view of the aforesaid statutory provision, only when the possession of the land which has been declared as surplus area is taken over by the State Government, then only it shall be deemed that such surplus area has been acquired by the State Government and all rights, title and interest of person concerned in such land are extinguished and vest in the State Government. As such if the possession of any surplus area of landowner has not been taken by or on behalf of the State MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.26 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-7106-2000 -9- Government, it shall not be deemed that such surplus area has been acquired and title of the landowner has been extinguished. 4. The stand of the appellant is that in view of the admitted position that the possession of the land which had been declared surplus in the year 1961-62 under the Pepsu Act had never been taken till the Punjab Act came into force in the year 1973 and as the appellant continued in possession thereof throughout, the respondent-authorities or the State Government was not entitled to take possession of such surplus area after the coming into force of the Punjab Act and the ceiling has to be determined afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Act. It appears that there is no dispute that when the Punjab Act came into force, the appellant had four adult sons and if the ceiling is fixed afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Act, the appellant had no surplus land.” 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while passing aforesaid order has noted various judgments including a full Bench judgment of this Court in Ranjit Ram v. Financial Commissioner Revenue, AIR 1981 P&H 313. 14. As the respondent has not taken over possession and never adjudicated the matter in terms of 1972 Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be reconsidered de novo. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab to pass fresh order considering provisions of 1972 Act, question of possession and ownership of Kaushalya Devi vis-a-vis Prem Nath over the land in question. Both sides would be free to raise all other issues (factual as well as legal) before the Financial Commissioner. Let the needful be done within 6 months from today. MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.26 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-7106-2000 -10- It is made clear that Financial Commissioner, (Appeals-I), Punjab would be free to seek reports from Authorities below but would not remand the matter back to the Authorities below because the matter is pending since 1991. The parties at the first instance would appear before Financial Commissioner, Punjab on 04.09.2025 at 11:00 AM. 15. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 25.08.2025 Mohit Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.26 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.