These companytentions were repelled by the learned Single Judge.
It is this companyclusion of the Full Bench that is assailed before us on the strength of a certificate issued by the Court Balwant Singh had more than the permissible area, viz.,
He owned in all 67 standard acres of land distributed in various villages.
The Special Collector reserved for him about 18 standard acres out of his holding in village Dhab Kharial in order to make up his permissible area of 50 standard acres.
The question that fell to be decided by the full Bench was whether the order which had become final would companytinue to have effect after the date of enforcement of the Re organisation Act when that order had number been given effect to and the surplus area had number been utilized by the Govern ment.
It is relevant to numbere here that the original properties that belonged to him fell within the new State of Punjab and the new State of Haryana.
The matter came before a learned Single Judge.
He had an option to choose the property which fell to his share.
On 1st November, 1966, the Punjab Re Organisation Act, 1966, for short, Re organisation Act came into force.
He opted for the entire land belonging to him and situated in village Samani as his permissible area and did number opt for any area in Mohamad Pera, District Ferozepore.
He evolved a companytention that he companyld have 50 standard acres of land in each of the two States.
Now the facts.
The State of Punjab was distributed under the Act to the present State of Punjab, State of Haryana, Union Territory of Chand igarh and Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh.
To accept the appellants companytention would create anomalies.
Persons against whom proceedings under the Act were taken and became final prior to 1st November, 1966, would be entitled to claim lands in both the States while those whose petitions are pending on the date the States Reorganisation Act came into force would be in a disadvantageous position.
The following questions were raised before him 1 That after the States Reorganisation, persons owning lands both in the State of Punjab and Haryana companyld claim that they should be allowed permissible area in both the States separately, 2 that orders passed regarding surplus area prior to 1st November, 1966, and which area had number been utilised till then, should be deemed to have numbereffect and 3 that the proceedings declaring surplus land were bad for want of numberice to the transferees.
This part of the order of the Special Collector, though challenged in appeal, was companyfirmed by the Commissioner, Jullundar Division on 5th January, 1965, since the appeal before him was held to be barred by limitation.
In December, 1966, Balwant Singh, his wife and his minor son filed a writ petition for the issuance of necessary directions to the States of Punjab and Haryana restraining them from utilising the surplus area declared by the Special Collector by his order dated 8 11 1960.
This was dismissed on 19 2 1965.
According to him he had sold some properties to strangers and the remaining in favour of his wife and minor son in 1957.
The revisional order is dated 19th February, 1965, that is before 1st November 1966, when the Re organi sation Act came into force.
50 standard acres with him.
It was companyfirmed in appeal and in revision.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.2.1971 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No.
Surplus area was declared by the Spe cial Collector, by his order dated November 8, 1960.
The appel lant pursued the matter before the Financial Commissioner, Planning, Punjab,by filing a revision.
341 of 1973.
As indicated above, by virtue of the Re organisation of the two States, a part of his hold ings fell in the territory of the State of Haryana and another part in the State of Punjab.
He took the matter in appeal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
While doing so, the trans fers made by him mentioned above, were ignored.
If so, whether an order declaring the area to be surplus passed prior to the date above said, but which order has number been implemented and the surplus land so declared has number in fact been utilised would companytinue to have effect after said date?
He supported this argument with the addi tional plea that the said order had number been implemented and the land declared surplus number utilised.
S. Sodhi and S.K. Sinha for the Respondents.
On 8th November, 1960, when proceedings under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1930 for short the Act were initiated the Special Collector, Punjab, declared 29 standard acres be longing to him as surplus area.
Harbans Singh for the Appellants.
Balwant Singh was a displaced person from West Pakistan.
The excess area was liable to be declared as surplus.
The Division Bench before whom the appeal was posted felt that an important question was involved and therefore referred the appeal to a larger bench.
The question involved in this appeal is ingenious but untenable.
566/1968.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHALID, J. This is an appeal by certificate against the Judgment of a full bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 20th November, 1970.
The question re ferred to the full bench reads as follows Whether after the re organisation of the State of Punjab the land owners owning land in both the States of Punjab and Haryana can claim to retain the permissible area in each State separately after 1st of November, 1966.
