JUDGMENT
Nirmal Singh, J.
1. This is a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that the orders Annexures P-2 and P-3 and P-7 be modified as the same are without jurisdiction and against the provisions of the Punjab Lands Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the New Act) with a further prayer that a direction be issued to the respondents that the surplus area case of the petitioner be decided as per the provisions of the New Act.
2. The facts are not disputed in this case. The total holding of the petitioner was 47 Std. Acres and 1-1/4 Units. The Collector-cum-Revenue Assistant, Ferozepur vide order dated 4.3.1969 declared land measuring 17 Acres and 1-1/2 Units as surplus with the Jain Upsara Trust (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-Trust). The Consolidation proceedings took place as a result of which area of the petitioner-Trust was reduced to 40 Std. Acre and 4-1/2 units. Aggrieved by the order dated 4.3.1969, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner, vide order dated 12.8.1970 remanded the case to the Collector, Ferozepur with a direction that benefit of reduction in area on account of consolidation operations be given to the petitioner and further that surplus area be separated in terms of Section 24(a)(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Old Act). The Commissioner also put a rider that it would not be open to the petitioner to make fresh selection to the detriment of eligible resettled tenants, if any.
3. The petitioner challenged the order dated 12.8.1970 passed by the Commissioner in the court of Financial Commissioner, Punjab with the apprehension that he may not be given his full permissible area because of the rider put but by the Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner vide order dated 10.12.1970 dismissed the revisions petition but at the same time made it clear that full permissible area would have to be granted to the land owner and it was only the area found surplus which would be utilized for the resettlement of eligible tenants. On remand, the Collector vide order dated 13.5.1971 (Annexure P-2) ordered the withdrawal of 28 Kanals 15 Marias of barani and chahi, nehri land from the surplus pool alongwith 8-1/4 units of Banjar Qadim land. Aggrieved against that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, who vide order dated 12.10.1976 (P-3) dismissed the same – Petitioner again filed a revision in the court of Financial Commissioner, Punjab. The Financial Commissioner vide, order dated 28.11.1974 (Annexure P-7) remanded the case to the Commissioner with a direction that he should record a finding whether full permissible area and full benefit of the reduction in the area owing to consolidation operations has been given to the petitioner as envisaged in order dated 12.8.1970 and 10.12.1970.
4. Mr. O.P. Hoshiarpuri, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings declaring the land of the petitioner were pending when the new Act came into force i.e. on 24.3.1973. He contended that due to the consolidation proceedings, the area of the petitioner was reduced from 47 Std, Acres and 1-1/4 Units to 40 Std. Acres and 4-1/2 Units and the Act has been repealed by the New Act and the proceedings under the Old Act stood repealed as per provisions of Section 28 of the New Act, therefore, area is to be redetermined under the provisions of the New Act in support of his submissions, he relied upon Ranjit Ram v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and Ors., 1981 P.L.J. 259 and Jagjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr., 1983 P.L.J. 319.
5. I have give my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
6. The only point arises for consideration in this petition is whether the area of the petitioner is to be re-determined under the provisions of the New Act for the purpose of declaring the land surplus ?
7. The case of the petitioner is that consolidation proceedings had taken place and his area has been reduced from 47 Std. Acres and 1-1/4 Units to 40 Std. Acres and 4-1/2 Units, therefore, the benefit of reduction in the area on account of consolidation operation is to be given to him. He has placed reliance on the decision of Full Bench in Ranjit Ram’s case (supra).
8. The decision rendered by the Full Bench in Ranjit Ram’s case (supra) and subsequently relied upon in Jagjit Singh’s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
9. In the case of Ranjit Ram’s case (supra), it has been held as under:-
“A landowner whose land has been declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, or under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act, 1955, and who has not yet been divested of the ownership of the surplus area before the enforcement of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, is entitled to select the permissible area for his family and for each of his adult sons in view of the provisions of Section 4 read with Section 5(1) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act.”
10. In the present case, the land owner has divested the ownership in favour of the State in the year 1961. Not only that the possession has been divested to the State, but State has further divested the possession in favour of the tenants (respondent Nos. 6 & 7) and this fact has not been denied by the petitioner. The proceedings can only be reopened and area can be re-determined under the New Act if they are pending under the Old Act.
11. When the petitioner has filed an appeal after reduction in the area due to the consolidation proceedings on that account, it cannot be said that proceedings were pending under the Old Act. The surplus area finally decided under the Old Act. The surplus area finally decided under the Old Act cannot be redetermined or the proceedings cannot be re-opened under the New Act on any other ground. The land of the petitioner was admittedly declared surplus by the Collector on 4.3.1969. The State has taken the possession of the area in the year 1961 and this area had been utilized for resettlement of tenants. Respondents No. 6 & 7 were put into possession as surplus land was allotted to them. Therefore, the re-determination of the land cannot be done under the New Act.
12. For the reasons recorded move, there is no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed.