The main legal point established in the judgment is that the knowledge and participation of the landowner in the proceedings regarding the surplus land were crucial in determining the outcome of the case.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - The legal heirs of the big landowner Rajender Pal Singh, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenge the order of the Division Bench of the Financial Commissioners, Haryana dated 07.08.2018 (Annexure P-6), wherein the order dated 18.01.1979 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Ambala Division has been upheld. Resultantly the order dated 25.02.1963 (Annexure P-2), whereby the Collector, Jhajjar had declared 281.9 Standard Acres of land surplus of the petitioners father big landowner, namely, Rajender Pal Singh, has also been upheld.

2. Senior Counsel Mr. A.K. Chopra, Advocate has vehemently argued that the landowner had never been communicated the order of the Collector and, therefore, the proceedings as such were in nullity and in the absence of the statement in Form-F having not been forwarded to the landowner and served upon him, the order declaring the land surplus was not justified. Reliance upon Rule 6 (8) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short as 1956 Rules') is made in this regard and, accordingly, various judgments of this Court qua this aspect have been relied upon for the said proposition, to submit that the appeal which was dismissed on 18.01.1979 (Annexure P-3) being time barred was not sustainable and, therefore, the same has been wrongly upheld by the Financial Commissioners on 07.08.2018 (Annexure P-6). The judgments passed in ' Dhaunkal Vs. Man Kauri and another , (1970) PunLJ 402, 'Vir Singh Vs. The State of Punjab and Others,1970 PunLJ 70, ' Dharam Vir Vs. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and Others , (1980) PunLJ 403' and in ' Bharat Starch & Chemicals Ltd. VS. State of Haryana and Others , (1994) PunLJ 392' have been relied upon. Apart from that an argument has been raised that the benefit of the Banjar Qadim and Banjar Jadid has not been given to the petitioners, which should have been given to them and, therefore, the Financial Commissioners have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them under the law.

3. In order to appreciate the argument raised, the factual matrix is firstly to be seen, as the petitioners predecessor-in-interest Rajender Pal Singh has resorted to various litigations in an effort to protect his surplus area, which also already stands allotted way back on 30.11.1977 to the tenants. Reference has, thus, also to be made to RSA No.3355 of 1986, which the father of the petitioners Rajender Pal Singh had filed. The land of Rajender Pal Singh was situated in 5 different villages of Rohtak and 2 villages of Mahendergarh Disrtrict and, accordingly, vide order dated 25.02.1963 (Annexure P-1), he was allowed to retain 50 standard acre, as permissible and declared 20 Standard Acre 9 Units as tenants' permissible area, whereas remaining 289 Standard Acre 9 Units was declared as surplus.

4. The Prescribed Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Jhajjar vide order dated 30.11.1977 (Annexure A-1 in RSA No.3355 of 1986) had ordered for delivering the possession of land, after getting the amount deposited. Accordingly, appeal was filed on 30.12.1977 before the Divisional Commissioner, Ambala Division, by the big landowner. In the appeal the plea taken was that Form-F had not been served upon the appellant regarding surplus area and, therefore, the appellant had no notice of the impugned order. The plea was also taken that no order was passed by the Special Collector, Chandigarh declaring the land as surplus and Special Collector, Chandigarh would have jurisdiction and the Collector at Jhajjar had illegally calculated the land and not excluded the land which would not fall under the definition of land under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short as 1953 Act'). The appellant allegedly came to know about the impugned order dated 25.02.1963 (Annexure P-1) on 01.12.1977 and copies had been applied on 09.12.1977. The appeal was dismissed on 18.01.1979 (Annexure P-3) on the ground of limi