Therefore, it was clear that there was numbersurplus area with the land owner and as such numberaction was required to be taken in that case.
That order was unsuccessfully challenged in Writ Petition No.
The appellant claiming to be the legatee of Daljit Singh filed the aforementioned writ petition assailing the validity of the said order of the Financial Commissioner passed on June 26, 1998.
Sub section I of Section 32 J states that the surplus area acquired under Section 32E shall be at the disposal of the State Government, It is thus evident that only on acquisition under Section 32E, the surplus land will be at the disposal of the State Government.
In the revision filed against that order, the said Daljit Singh raised a pica that there was orchard on the land and, therefore, the land companyprising thereof companyld number be companyputed in determining surplus land but that plea was rejected and on January 27, 1965, the case was remanded back to the Collector for fresh companysideration by the Commissioner.
On fresh companysideration the Collector.
5 to 10 filed application seeking delivery of possession of the land in question on December 16, 1996 which gave rise to the present appeal.
2000 Supp 5 SCR 429 The following Order of the Court was delivered Leave is granted.
By the impugned order the High Court companyfirmed the order of the Financial Commissioner Appeals II dated June 26,1998 in Case No.
On the proceedings for determination of surplus land under the Pepsu Act being initiated the Special Collector declared that Daljit Singh held 22.15 standard acres as surplus land on January 23, 1963, That order was carried in appeal by him but it was dismissed on May, 27, 1963.
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.
1219 of 1965 which was dismissed on February 21, 1974.
The Collector dismissed their application on April 17,1997.
Malerkotla, by his order dated June 29, 1976 hereinafter referred to as P2 declared the owner was in possession of 16.98 standard acres as surplus land.
They carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, who by order dated September 22, 1997 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.
It appears under the Land Reforms Act, Daljit Singh filed a declaration on October 3, 1973 on which the Collector, Agrarian, Malerkotla, passed order on June 27, 1976 hereinafter referred on as P1 holding that according to Section 5 1 of the said Act, the land owner was entitled to reserve two units of land as permissible area i.e. one unit for himself and one unit for his major son.
In the meanwhile, the Land Reforms Act came into force on April 2, 1973.
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.
11100 of 1998 dated July 30,1998.
On appeal of Daljit Singh against that order, the Commissioner, Patiala, on May 30,1975, remanded the case to the Collector to companysider the effect of the decree of the Civil Court.
Thereafter there was a lull till respondent Nos.
1 the surplus Area acquired under section 32E shall be at the disposal of the State Government.
R.O.R. No.
115 of 1997 98.
While so, the Collector, Malerkotla, after remand of the case pending under the Pepsu Act, by order dated September 26, 1974 declared that the land owner was having surplus land of 20.75 standard acres.
