CWP-17190-2026 (O&M) 1 135 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-17190-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 07.07.2026 Banta Singh (now deceased) through his LRs ....Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. J.S. Sirphikhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.P.S. Ishar, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Amandeep S. Manaise, Advocate for respondents No.4 & 5. PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) CM-9600-CWP-2026 This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC for placing on record copy of Jamabandi for the year 2018-2019 of village Fatehgarh Churia, Had Bast No.336, marked as Annexure P-24. For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Annexure P-24 is taken on record. Registry to tag the same at an appropriate place. DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.13 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17190-2026 (O&M) 2 CWP-17190-2026 Instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.03.2026 passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab. 2. The lis has its genesis in Form K1 submitted by the respondents seeking ejectment of petitioners under Section 9(1) of the Punjab Security Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1953 Act’). The petitioner contested the same. As per petitioner, respondents are big land owners and thus cannot seek ejectment. Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Batala vide order dated 11.05.1983 dismissed the application of the respondents. Respondents preferred appeal which was accepted vide order dated 27.07.1983. The order passed by the Assistant Collector was set aside and the matter was remanded back for decision afresh. 2.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector, present petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 21.12.1983. Still dissatisfied, the present petitioner preferred revision petition under Section 24 of the 1953 Act before Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab. The revision was also dismissed vide order dated 22.03.1984. 2.2. In terms of the remand order dated 27.07.1983, Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Batala allowed the application filed by the respondents. This initiated second round of lis between the parties. The petitioner again preferred appeal. Order dated 05.12.1985 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Batala was set aside vide order dated 11.03.1987 and the matter was DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.13 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17190-2026 (O&M) 3 remanded back for a fresh decision. Thereafter, the respondents preferred appeal before the Commissioner. The same was dismissed vide order dated 05.01.1988 maintaining the remand order. Pursuant to the said remand order, Assistant Collector again passed order dated 13.12.1990 (Annexure P-7). Application filed by the respondents under Form K1 was rejected. The respondents again preferred appeal before Collector, Gurdaspur. The order passed by the Assistant Collector was again set aside and the matter was remanded back for a fresh decision vide order dated 29.12.1992. Assistant Collector, 1st Grade vide order dated 18.12.2006 decided the case afresh and allowed the application filed by the respondents. 2.2. Still aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 24 of the 1953 Act before Collector, Gurdaspur. Vide Annexure P-10, dated 10.04.2008, Collector Gurdaspur, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. The same was assailed in revision under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 read with Section 24 of 1953 Act. The revision was decided vide order dated 10.06.2008 by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division. Revision was allowed. Orders passed by the Assistant, 1st Grade and that passed by the Collector were set aside and the matter was again remanded back. The respondents assailed the same before Financial Commissioner Appeals, Punjab, by way of ROR No.177 of 2009. Revision was allowed vide order dated 30.10.2014. 2.3. The order passed by Financial Commissioner Appeals, Punjab was challenged by way of CWP No.13925 of 2017 claiming that the DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.13 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17190-2026 (O&M) 4 revisional court decided the revision and passed the order at the back of the petitioner as he was in custody at the relevant point of time. This Court vide order dated 30.08.2017 set aside the order dated 30.10.2014 passed by the Financial Commissioner Appeals, Punjab, permitting both the parties to raise all the pleas available to them and directed them to appear before the Financial Commissioner. 2.4. Pursuant to the said order, impugned order dated 27.03.2026 has been passed whereby order passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, dated 10.06.2008 has been upheld. 3. Counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order submitting that the orders dated 10.04.2008 passed by Collector, Gurdaspur and that dated 18.12.2006 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Batala which have been upheld by Financial Commissioner are in teeth of remand order. He has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 13.12.1990 to submit that a specific finding was recorded by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Batala that the land purchased by the respondents and the estate inherited by them from their mother needs to be included while calculating the permissible area in the hands of respondents. The same has not been followed. This has led to perversity in the impugned orders passed by the authorities. He thus submits that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector being in teeth of the remand orders cannot be sustained. Learned Financial Commissioner erred in law in ignoring the same. DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.13 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17190-2026 (O&M) 5 4. Per contra, Mr. Manaise would submit that the entire exercise was re-conducted as per and in terms of remand order. He has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 10.04.2008 passed by Collector, Gurdaspur which in detail notices that the Patwaries from concerned villages were called. Their statements were recorded and it is thereafter that the permissible area was calculated. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through records of the case. 6. By now the parties are litigating for almost 50 years and have undergone three rounds of litigation. The issue on which the fate of the present lis hinges, is: ‘Whether the respondents Nand Kishore and Kewal Krishan @ Kewal Kishore were small land owners or not at the time they sought ejectment of petitioners filling application under Section 9 of the 1953 Act?’ 7. Admittedly, their father Devi Dayal was a small land owner. The petitioners contested application filed in Form K1 by the respondents claiming that owing to the land received by the respondents by way of inheritance from their mother and land purchased by them, respondents are big land owners and not small land owners. The entire issue was considered in detail by Collector, Gurdarspur in the order dated 10.04.2008, which reads as under: DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.13 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17190-2026 (O&M) 6 “Now the first point for consideration before the court is whether the applicants are small land owners. To prove this aspect of the case, the applicants have produced, before the Hon'ble court, unimpeachable oral and documentary evidence to which there is absolutely no rebuttal worth the name. The gist of the said evidence is as under:- 1. Sh. Chaman Lal Patawari, Fatehgarh Churrina was examined in the court as AW-1, after remand, on 8.10.1984. He has deposed with the help of the Revenue Record that the Qadim and remaing 24 kanals 9 marlas as Gair Mumkin as per the latest Khasra Girdawari, the land was being irrigated by tubewell water and canal water. He had further stated that the Jamabandi for the year 1983-84 had not so far been sanctioned till the time of his deposition in court viz. On 25.3.1985. In the court Sh. Kedar Nath office Kanungo was examined as a witness on 31.5.1989 and 7.8.1989. He was cross-examined on behalf of the respondent on 21.9.89. As per his statement now land measuring 173 kanals 11 marlas out the total land 184 kanals 8 marlas was Chahi Nehri and balance 10 kanals 17 marlas was only gair mumin. This is the postion of the land owned by the applicants in village Fatehgarh Churrina. 2. The applicants own another tract of land in village Lohranwali. According to Sh. Charan Singh Patwari who was examined after the previous remand, on 17.4.89 the applicants ownerd 46 Kanals 4 Marlas of land in the said village which is entire Chahi Nehri except 4 Kanals 14 Marlas comprising in Khasra No. 6/24. Sh. Kedar Nath who was examined on 31.5.89 has testified that as per the latest Jamabandi the total holding of the applicants in that village is 46 kanals 13 marlas out of which 26 kanlas 3 marlas in Nehri while 20 kanals 10 Marlas is Barani. The Jamabandi Ex. AX/4 and AX/5 shows that the holding in this village is 46 Kanals 4 Marlas. The applicants also own land measuring 13 Kanals 8 Marlas in village Awan as per the aforesaid statement of Sh. Kedar Nath DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.13 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17190-2026 (O&M) 7 Ofice Kanungo and copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1986-87 Ex. AX/3. The entire land in this village is Chahi Nehri. Now the situation which emerges from the above facts is that the applicants are owners of the land in the aforesaid three villages as under:- Total area Chahi Nehri Banjar/ Gair.Mumkin 1. Fatehgarh Churian 184Kls. 8 Mls. 173Kl. 11 Mls. 10Kls. 17Mls. 2. Loharanwali 46Kl. 13 Mls. 26Kl. 3Mls. 20Klas. 10Mls. 3. Awan 13Kl. 8 Mls. 13Kls. 8Mls 244Kl. 9Mls. 213Kl. 2Mls. 31Kl. 7Mls As per ruled 8 framed under the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1973 the valuation of the land is 100% for the Ist quality i.e. Chahi Nehri land and 34% for Brani, Gair mumkin, Banjar, Salab etc. Taking into the factor of the above valuation the Ist Clase 213 Kanals 2 Marlas of land converted into Het-acres comes to 10.78 Hectors (213 Kanals 2 Marlas 213-2/20-213- 1/10=2131/10X1/8/ 100/247=10655/988=10.78) and the standard acre of 3 kanals 7 marlas of Banjar land is 34/100=10659/ 19760=0.53 Hectors). The total standard holding of the two applicants in the aforesaid 3 villages thus comes to 11.31 Hectors i.e. 5.65 Hectors each. If at all or under any circumstances, the land measuring 31 Kanlas 7 Marlas is also considered to be Chahi Nehri of first quality land then its area (standard) will be only 1.58 Hectors (i.e. 627/20X100/247). The difference will come to 1.05 Hectors raising the total holding from 11.31 to 12.36 viz 6.18 Hectors each. The respondent had raised the plea that the father of the applicants owned land in two other villages viz village Dogar and village Tarpalls which had been inherited by them. The said ascertain of the respondent is wrong and incorrect. The statement of Sh. Om Parkash Patwari Halwa Jhanjian Kalan recorded on 8.10.1984 is quite clear on this point. According to him Sh. Devi Dayal father of the applicants was owner of 5 Kanals of land in village Dogar inherited any land out of the said land. DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.13 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17190-2026 (O&M) 8 So far as village Tarpalla is concerned, the statement of Sh. Charan Singh Patwari A.W.2 as referred to above and as recorded on 17.4.1985 is quite clear. As per him Sh. Devi Dayal the father of the applicants had 1/5th share in land measuring 49 Kanlas 13 Marlas which had been sold by him during his life time vide mutation No. 392 Ex. A 4/A. As per this mutation the land was sold by Sh. Devi Dayal on 24.5.73 for Rs. 4000.00. Thus, the applicants did not inherit any land from their father in village Tarpalla as well. That, as the said Sh. Devi Dayal himself was not a being land owner so no land of his was surplus as was held by the Agrarian Collectro vide his order dated 30.1.1975 Ex. A/4/F. The said order was passed during the life time of Sh. Devi Dayal and the Sales of his land in village Tarpalla and Dogar during his life time cannot be tacked on and included in the holding of the applicants. Admittedly Sh. Devi Dayal died in year 1976. The fact stands admitted in the statement of Sh. Balbir Singh R.W.4 the son of Mukhtia of Banta Singh respondent and as recorded on 4.10.1982. So looking from any angle it is quite apparent that the applicants are not being land owners and are only small land owners. Another point which requires clarification in this respect is that the sons and wife of Sh. Nand Kishore applicant have come to own some land in village Kahnuwan Tehsil Gurdaspur. Though this land is not liable to be included in the holding of the applicants yet to remove all doubts and disputes on this score the position is submitted as under:- Sh. Nand Kishore applicant vide his statement dated 4.1.90 recorded in the court has clearly stated that he has no connection with the land measuring 48 Kanals 3-1/2 marlas land as owned by his sons Vinod Kumar and Subodh Kumar in village Kahnuwan. Sh. Kedar Nath office Qanungo has worked out description of the said land contained in the Jamabandi of the said land as placed on the file of this case. The standard area of the 48 Kanals 3-1/2 marlas of land of Smt. Shakuntla Devi comes to 0.82 Hectors while 79 kanals 15 Marlas of land of vinod kumar and Subodh DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.13 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17190-2026 (O&M) 9 kumar worked out in standard acres comes to 1.37 Hectors. The value of this land has been evacuated as 34% under the Rules framed under Punjab land reforms Act. The total standard are owned by Smt. Sakuntla Devi, Vinod Kumar and Subodh Kumar thus comes to 2.19 Hectors. It is also in evidence i.e. in the statement of Sh. Nand Kishore, with absolutely no rebuttal, from the side, that two sons of Sh. Nand Kishore and one son of Sh. Kewal Krishan applicants are majors. If this are is to be included in the holding of the applicants then the holding is to be considered of all the five persons each of whom is entitled to have separate Kurrah for himself, otherwise also and irrespective of the foregoing assertion of the applicants the two sons of Nand Kishore and one son Kewal Krishan are entitle to have a separate Kurrah while working out the statue of Nand Kishore and Kewal Krishan applicants as to the nature of their holdings i.e. whether they are big land owners or small land owners. So looking from any angle and by stretching any amount of imagination, as advanced by the respondent, the applicants cannot be held to be the big land owners under the provisions of the Punjab Security of land Tenure Act and the applicants are entitled to an order of ejectment of the respondent from the land in dispute under Section 9(i) 9a) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953.” 8. The said order was set aside in appeal by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, observing as under: “4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellants and have perused the copies of orders of Collector Gurdaspur and A.C. Ist Grade Batala and other papers brought on the file. I find that the order of courts of Collector and of A.C. Ist Grade deserve to be set aside. Accordingly the A.C. Ist Grade and Collector’s order are set aside as the orders dated DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.13 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17190-2026 (O&M) 10 29.12.1992 passed by the Collector, Gurdaspur are not complied with in letter and spirit. A.C. Ist Grade is directed to pass speaking orders on following issues observations of the Collector’s order dated 29.12.1992:- (i) The A.C. Ist Grade should have gathered evidence regarding ownership of the respondents in Village Dogar and Tarpalla and should have included that land in the land owned by them in the other three villages in order that a clear picture could emerge as to whether they are small land owners or not. (ii) Secondly, in his impugned order he has stated that the appellants have inherited some land from their mother which has again not been counted. Once again, the A.C. Ist Grade should have gathered all the evidence regarding this and should have included this also to prove the point. (iii) Whatever land is owned by the appellants should have been got converted into standard acres with the help of Kanungo Agrarian so that a uniform picture could emerge as to how many standard acres of land is owned by the appellants and as well as the respondents. (iv) After this exercise final orders should be passed.” 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, a bare perusal of the order passed by the Collector would reveal that the observations made by Commissioner in his order dated 10.06.2008 are erroneous. The entire exercise has already been completed by the authorities below. Commissioner pointed out the deficiencies and discrepancies which in fact did not exist. Financial Commissioner vide impugned order rightly quashed the order passed by the Commissioner upholding the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector. DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.13 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17190-2026 (O&M) 11 10. In view of the detailed order passed by the Collector, this Court finds that the reasoned finding of facts have been recorded which need no interference. Resultantly, finding no merit in the instant writ petition, the same is ordered to be dismissed. 11. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed off. July 07, 2026 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.13 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document