V.K Bali, J. — The original big landlord Kashmiri Lal was admittedly owner of 92 Standard Acres 8-1/4 units of land located in village Salemshah. On the appointed date i.e April 15, 1953 admittedly notice under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953 was issued to determine if he had any surplus land. The matter for the aforesaid purpose came before Collector Agrarian, Fazilka who vide his order dated September 13, 1960 after leaving 50 Standard Acts of land as permissible area declared 42 Standard Acres 3/4 units as surplus. The landowner challenged the aforesaid order by way of an appeal before the Commissioner and the same was accepted vide order dated February 1, 1962. However, the case was remanded for fresh decision and a direction was given that the transfers made by the landowner in favour of Amar Nath, Chuni Lal and Tilak Raj who were none other than the present petitioners and are admittedly his successors by way of Civil Court decree obtained by them in the year 1956 be taken into account. The Collector Fazilka vide his order dated August 28, 1962 after allowing 50 Standard Acres of land as permissible area declared 34 Standard Acres 14-1/4 units as surplus. It is significant to mention that the transfers made by the big landowner in favour of his sons on the basis of Court decree were not held to be bona fide. The matter was further agitated by way of an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Jalandhar who vide his order dated April 18, 1953 accepted the appeal and reduced the surplus area from 34 Standard Acres 14-1/4 units to 33 Standard Acres 4-3/4 units. The landowner thereafter did not agitate the matter but as some part of the area declared surplus had since already been mortgaged by the landowner, the mortgagee sought review of the order dated April 18, 1963. The plea of mortgagee succeeded and vide order dated October 23, 1965 the Additional Commissioner Jalandhar reviewed his earlier order dated April 18, 1963. This order of Additional Commissioner Jallandhar was challenged in appeal before the Financial Commissioner Punjab Chandigarh who vide his order dated December 31, 1965 dismissed the revision petition. The landowner then filed Civil Writ Petition No. 432 of 1966 in this Court which too did not find any favour with this Court and it was dismissed vide order dated May 7, 1975. However, the litigation was going on when the new Act i.e Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 came into being. Original landowner Kashmiri Lal died on May 25, 1974. Collector vide his order dated November 17, 1976 on account of demise of the original landowner held that inasmuch as the successors of the landowner would be small landowners and no land in their hands could be declared surplus, the death of original landowner would result in non-operation of the earlier order declaring his land as surplus. Before, however, the aforesaid order was passed in the manner indicated above, land measuring 11 Standard Acres 10-1/4 units had since been allotted in facour of Bishan Singh, Jugraj Singh, Jalla Singh, Mangal Singh and others. Obviously, the allotment was out of the land declared surplus m the case of the big landlord and the same was made way back in the year 1964. When the successors of the original landowner i.e the present petitioners after obtaining a favourable order in their favour proceeded against the allottees mentioned above and filed an application for their ejectment before the Collector Agrarian Fazilka who actually ordered their eviction vide order January 3, 1978. Respondents No. 3 to 9 went in separate appeals before the Additional Commissioner, Ferozepore Division who after hearing the parties at length vide order dated November 30, 1981 accepted the appeals and set aside the orders dated November 17, 1976 of the Collector. The aforesaid reversal of decision was obviously not to the liking of the petitioners who agitated the matter before the Financial Commissioner and being unsuccessful from that Court as well, they have approached this Court by way of present Writ Petition with a prayer to quash orders passed by Additional Commissioner Ferozepore as also the Financial Commissioner.

2. Although in the petition, number of points have been raised but the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has mainly contended that once the orders of declaration of surplus area were set aside vide order October 28, 1965, the allotments made on the basis of orders vide which the land of big landowner was declared surplus would ipso-facto become void. The facts, however, as narrated above would go to show that orders dated August 28, 1962 Page: 356and April 18, 1963 in so far as landowner is concerned, had become final. He had not agitated the matter thereafter and in fact an application for review was carried only by the mortgagee. As indicated above, the review application preferred by the mortgagee was accepted. It is that order which was later on challenged by the original landowner before the Financial Commissioner and the High Court and as indicated above, he was unsuccessful at ever stage. Order dated April 18, 1963 had, therefore, attained finality qua the landowner. As mentioned above, he had only challenged the order dated April 18, 1963 and vide order dated October 28, 1965 the review of order April 18, 1963 was permitted. The order passed on the review application cannot possibly be interpreted so as to mean that part of the order which was not even challenged by any one was also set aside. The Financial Commissioner after thoroughly going through the facts of the case came to the correct conclusion that while permitting the review, the Additional Commissioner ought to have limited the scope of the review to the extent of protecting the interests of the mortgagee and if me order is read as a whole, it would be clear that review was to cover the interest of mortgagee only and in all other respects, order dated Aprill 18, 1963 had not to be touched.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that the order by which on demise of original big landowner no effect was to be given to the earlier orders passed under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act could not possibly be challenged by the tenants who had been settled on the land declared surplus. In support of his aforesaid contention, the learned counsel relies upon decision of division bench of this Court in “Bhupinder Singh v. The State of Punjab and others”, 1980 PLJ 72. The facts of Bhupinder Singh's case (supra), would, however, show that while interpreting Rule 6(5) and 6(6) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956, it was held that the “reference to the tenants in this rule is clearly to such tenants who were already on the land of the landlord in their capacity as such before the declaration of surplus area by thee Special Collector. Such tnants were considered to be necessary parties and if was imperative to hear them because the scheme of the Act is clear that the land of a tenant who was cultivating the same as such at the time of the enforcement of the Act, could not be reserved by the big landlord at the time of the declaration of surplus area by the Special Collector.” It was also held that “in so far as the resettled tenant is concerned, he is brought on the surplus land of the landlord after it is declared surplus by the Special Collector. Thus his status as a tenant or a resettled tenant follows the declaration of some area out of the land of the landlord as surplus. Such tenants or resettled tenants were not to be divested of their rights of my specific order to that effect as a result of the setting aside of the order declaring some area to be surplus in the hands of a particular landlord.” We are, however, not inclined to agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It shall be seen from the facts of the present case that the tenants were settled on the land which was declared surplus in the hands of the original landowner way back in the year 1964. The Punjab Land Reforms Act 1972 came into force on 2nd of April, 1973. under the Act aforesaid, the manner in which the surplus land is to be allotted, a scheme known as Punjab Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme 1973 was also framed. Paragraph 13 of the aforesaid Scheme runs as follows:—

“A tenant resettled on the surplus area of a landowner in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Law and the Rules framed thereunder at any time before the commencement of the Act shall be deemed to have been allotted land in accordance with the provisions of this scheme: Provided that the provisions of this paragraph shall not be applicable where the tenant is deemed to have become the owner in accordance with clause (d) of sub-section (4) of section 18 of the Punjab Law before the commencement of the scheme.”

4. Paragraph 13 of the scheme is, thus, attracted to the facts of the present case. The landowner died on 253.1974 i.e after the enforcement of scheme of 1973. The tenante who were settled on the surplus land on account of paragraph 13 of the scheme reproduced above improved their status and became allottees. It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that under the scheme of 1973, a tenant settled on the surplus area had a right to get allotment as proprietor persons who were tenants under the Act of 1953 became allottees in view of the provisions of Punjab Land Reforms Act and Punjab Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme. It cannot be urged on any meaningful ground that they would not have a right to be heard or they would not have a right to challenge the order if their rights were going to be prejudiced on account of any order that might either reduce the surplus area or totally obliterate the same. The judgment cited by the learned counsel in support of his contention that the tenants or resettled tenants have no right of hearing nor they have any right to challenge the order with regard to surplus area of landowner has, thus, no substance and, mus, deserves to be rejected.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners cannot prevail for yet another reason and that is that the facts of the present case reveal that the tenants were settled on the land way back in the year 1964 and the death of landowner occurred in the year 1974. Once the land stood utilized even the death of the landowner would not make any difference for reducing the surplus area, at least to the extent that the same stood utilized as per provisions contained in Section 10-A(b) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953, it is only succession by inheritance or acquisition by the State that might result into reducing the surplus area in case of death of landowner but in so far as the land which has been utilized, that cannot possibly revert back to the landowner. Page: 357The apex Court in “Sher Singh and others v. Financial Commissioner of Planning, Punjab and others”, AIR 1987 SC 1307 : 1987 RRR 164, has held that “along with the order declaring the land of an owner as surplus, a corresponding right and duty accrue to the Government to utilise the surplus area for the re-settlement of tenants. In other words, the rights on the land declared as surplus get vested in the Government, to be distributed amongst the tenants for resettlement. This is an indefeasible right that the Government secures. The landowner could not get back the land, if the surplus had not been utilised. There is nothing in the Act which imposes any time limit for the Government to utilise the land for purpose mentioned in the Act Nor is there any provision enabling the owner of the land to claim back the land and to get is restored to him if utilisation is not made by me Government within a specified period. All that the Act contains by way of exception is what is seen in Section 10 A(b). If at me time of the commencement of the Act, the land is acquired by the Government under the relevant acquisition laws or when it is a case of inheritance, the owner could claim exclusion of such land from his land for fixation of his ceiling under that Act. The second exception itself is further fettered by me provision in Section 10-B that where succession had opened after me surplus area or any part thereof had been utilised under Section 10-A(a), me saving specified in favour of an heir by inheritance would not apply in respect of the area so utilised. To put it short, the Government had under the Act an unfettered right without time limit to utilise the land for re-settlement of tenants subject to the two exceptions mentioned above. It is, of course, desirable, that re-settlement should be done as expeditiously as possible. Inaction on the part of the Government to re-settle the tenants will not clothe the owner with a power for restoration of the land.”

6. A resume of facts as have been re-produced above would, thus, show dut me tenants had acquired a right for allotment of the land. Therefore, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that there had no locus standi to challenge the orders vide which me earlier orders declaring surplus land in the hands of the original landowner was sought to be reviewed on the demise of Tilak Raj the original landowner. In “Bhikoba Shankar Dhuman (dead) by L.Rs and outers v. Mohan Lal Punch and Tathed and others”, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 865 it has been held dut any person who is entitled to grant of land under the provisions of Act may question an order which would have the effect of reducing the extent of total surplus land in any village.

7. Finding no merit whatsoever in this petition, we dismiss me same with costs which are quantified at Rs. 1,000/-.

Petition dismissed.