HARNEK SINGH versus FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, APPEALS, PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 429 · Decided: 06-12-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI, S.N. PHUKAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

HARNEK SINGH 
v. 
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, APPEALS, PUNJAB AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 6, 2000 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Punjab land Reforms Act, 1972/PEPSU Tenancy Agricultural Lands 
Act, 1955. 
A 
B 
S.8(2), Proviso, and 28/ss. 320-F and 320-J--Vesting of surplus area C 
in State Government and allotment thereof-land of tenure holder determined 
surplus under PEPSU Act-Possession not taken-litigation pending-- -
Meanwhile Punjab land Reforms Act came into force-landowner filing 
declaration-Collector holding that in view of s.5(1), landowner was entitled 
to reserve two units of land, one for him and other for his major son; and D 
there being no Slirp/us area, no action required to be taken-In the meantime 
on the basis of decision under PEPSU Act allotment of surplus land made 
inf avour of respondents 5 to I 0 without notice to tenure holder-landowners 
claim that possession of surplus land determined under PEPSU Act having 
not been taken, land did not vest in the State-Held, proceedings for 
determination of surplus area pending immediately before the commencement E 
of land Reforms Act, under PEPSU Act and Punjab Security of Land Tenures 
Act, 1953 to be continued and disposed of as if land Reforms Act had not 
been passed and surplus area so determined shall vest in and be utilized by 
the State Government in accordance with provisions of land Reforms Act-
Such proceedings shall be continued and disposed of from the stage they F 
were pending immediately before commencement of land Reforms Act and in 
accordance with the procedure specified under land Reforms Act-Under 
land Reforms Act, vesting of surplus land in State is pre-requisite of framing 
of scheme in respect of such land-Without taking possession of any surplus 
land there can be no vesting of surplus land in State Government and a 
fortiori no scheme can be framed in respect of such land much less can it be G 
al/oued to any person-In the instant case, land in question did not vest in 
State Government as possession thereof was not taken and as such the rights, 
title and interest of land owner of the land continued with him, and, therefore, 
allotment of the land in favour of respondents 5 to 10 is illegal and void. 
429 
H 
430 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.CR. 
A 
Ranjit Ram v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab & Ors., 
(1981) 83 Punjab Law Reporter 492, approved. 
Ujjagar Singh (dead) by LRs. v. The Collector, Bhatinda & Am:, JT 
(I 996) 6 SC 713, relied on. 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7156 of2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.7.98 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court in C.W.P. NO. 11100of1998. 
P.C. Jain, D.S. Bali, Hiren Dasan, Nitin Bhardwaj, Manoj Swarup, Rajesh 
C K. Sharma, Goodwill lndeevar, Ms. Jayshree Anand, Additional Advocate 
General for State, G. Sivabalamurugan, R.S. Suri and U.U. Lalit and Rajeev 
Kumar Sharma for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
D 
Leave is granted. 
The appellant who claims to be the legatee of the owner of the land, 
late Daljit Singh, assails the order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana 
passed in CWP No. 11100 of 1998 dated July 30, 1998. By the impugned order 
the High Court confirmed the order of the Financial Commissioner Appeals-
E II dated June 26, 1998 in Case No. R.O.R. No. l 15 of 1997-98. 
This appeal arises out of the proceeding initiated before the Collector 
Agrarian, Dhuri by respondents 5 to 10 for delivery of possession of the land 
in question on the ground that it was allotted to them on September 22, 1980. 
F The Collector dismissed their application on April 17, 1997. They carried the 
matter in appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, who by order 
dated September 22, I 997 allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the 
Collector for passing a speaking order. Daljit Singh filed revision against that 
order before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II) (East Punjab), which 
was dismissed on June 26, 1998. The appellant claiming to be the legatee of 
G Daijit Singh filed the aforementioned writ petition assailing the validity of the 
said order of the Financial Commissioner passed on June 26, 1998. The writ 
petition was dismissed by the High Court on July 30, 1998. It is against that 
order that the appellant is in appeal before us. 
Mr. P.C. Jain, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, 
H contends that after determination of surplus land under th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.