The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case before applying any law.

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.

Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.7.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab-respondent no.2, whereby claim of the petitioners, being vendees of original big land-owners was declined to be protected, as the petitioners were not found bonafide purchasers, because they purchased the land much after it had already been declared surplus in the hands of their vendors.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. Placing reliance on three judgments of this court in Hanuman Vs. Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab, 1997 (1) RCR (Civil) 496, Surinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab through Secretary to Govt., Revenue Deptt., Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2004 (2) RCR (Civil) 724 and Paramjit Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2015 (7) RCR (Civil) 706, besides placing reliance on Full Bench judgment of this court in Sardara Singh and others Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 744, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners were vendees of Gurmeet Singh, who purchased the land from original land owner Pritpal Singh and possession from them was not taken, their rights would be protected because they were small land owners. Had the surplus area case been re-determined in the hands of the petitioners, there would be no surplus land in their hands. He further submits that since the Financial Commissioner has failed to consider each and every material aspect of the matter, while passing the impugned order, the same is liable to be set aside. In this regard, he also places reliance on another judgment of this court in Kuldip Singh (through LRs) and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 672. He prays for setting aside the impugned order, by allowing the present writ petition.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this court is of the considered opinion that since the impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, has not been found suffering from any patent illegality or perversity and the same deserves to be upheld. The writ petition is without any merit, which is liable to be dismissed, for the following more than one reasons.

5. It is a matter of record that Pritpal Singh was original land owner. Proceedings for declaring the surplus area in his hands were initiated, which culminated in the order dated 8.11.1962, whereby land was declared surplus in the hands of original big land owner namely; Pritpal Singh. It is also not in dispute that original land owner Pritpal Singh never filed any appeal against the above said order dated 8.11.1962, which attained finality against him. Thereafter, Pritpal Singh-original big land owner sold land measuring 624 kanals out of the revenue estate of Village Harchandpura, vide sale deed dated 10.8.1970, to more than one persons namely; Major Singh, Gurmit Singh, Lachhman Singh and Gurmail Singh sons of Hazara Singh and Nand Kaur wife of Hazara Singh.

6. Abovesaid Gurmit Singh, who purchased the land out of surplus area, from original big land owner namely; Pritpal Singh, vide sale deed dated 10.8.1970, further sold the land in favour of present petitioners no.1 to 3 namely; Virsa Singh S/o Gian Singh, Malkiat Singh s/o Mukhtiar Singh and Gurdeep Singh s/o Charan Singh, through a registered sale deed in the year 1970 itself. Petitioners could not place any material on record, so as to show that they were bonafide purchasers from Gurmit Singh. In fact, this claim of the petitioners that they were bonafide purchasers, came to be rejected by the Financial Commissioner, vide his order dated 2.11.1993.

7. So far as petitioners no.4 and 5, who are sons of original big land owner namely; Pritpal Singh are concerned, they have failed to establish on record, at any point