Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: - This order shall dispose of CWP-18673-1995 and CWP 18674-1995 as common questions of fact and law are involved in both these petitions.

2. Civil Writ Petition No.18673-1995 has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 17.06.1993 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent no.3-Collector Agrarian, Fazilka, dated 23.05.1995 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent no.2-Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and dated 23.08.1995 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent no.1-Financial Commissioner (Appeals II), Punjab.

3. Civil Writ Petition No.18674-1995 has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders dated 16.04.1984 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent no.3-Special Collector, Agrarian Ferozepur, dated 23.05.1995 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent no.2-Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and dated 23.08.1995 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent no.1-Financial Commissioner (Appeals II), Punjab.

4. In both the petitions, the petitioner has also sought a direction to respondent no.3 to re-assess his land for determining the surplus area, if any, while giving him the benefit of adult son.

5. For convenience sake, a brief reference to the facts is necessary which are being extracted from CWP-18673-1995.

6. The petitioner was a big land owner. Surplus area proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (in short, ‘the 1953 Act’). Vide order dated 28.06.1965, 21 kanals of land of the petitioner situated in village Bandiwala, Tehsil Fazilka was declared surplus. The said land remained unutilized. In the meantime, the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (in short, ‘the 1972 Act’) came into being w.e.f 02.04.1973. As per the provisions of the 1972 Act, permissible limits of area are separately defined and an adult son is also entitled to separate unit. The petitioner moved application for determination of permissible area under Section 5 (1) of the 1972 Act on the ground that the land had remained un-utilized till the commencement of the 1972 Act. Consequently, vide order dated 14.01.1977 (Annexure P-1), respondent no.3-Collector Agrarian reconsidered the matter and recorded a finding that the land of the petitioner is within permissible limits and there is no surplus area in his hands, however, if the land mortgaged by him is redeemed beyond the permissible limit, the same shall go to surplus pool. It has also been recorded that holding of the land owner declared surplus under the 1953 Act or any part thereof is the surplus area under the 1953 Act, of any other landowner, the entire holding of the landowner or part thereof as the case may be, shall remain surplus and shall not be affected by the order of the Collector. The order was passed in 1977 but no action was taken. However, proceedings were again started in the year 1984 and it was declared that 21 kanals land stood declared surplus under the 1953 Act. Vide impugned orders (Annexures P-3 to P-5), it has been held that the petitioner is not entitled to any protection, consequently the proceedings for taking over possession were initiated under Section 9(2) of the 1972 Act. Hence, writ petition was filed.

7. In pursuance of notice, the respondents no.1 to 3 put in appearance and filed written statement. In written statement, it is pleaded that the order dated 14.01.1977 vide which surplus area of the landowner was declared surplus, has never been challenged by the petitioner and it has become final, therefore, the surplus area declared as such under the 1953 Act would remain surplus. The notice under Section 9(1) of the 1972 Act for taking possession of surplus land was issued to the landowner. The area was declared surplus in the year 1960, therefore, the landowner cannot take the benefit of his son who became adult later. The surplus land has vested in the State.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties