102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision: 25.02.2026

1. CWP-4786-1993 (O&M)

Makan Dharamshala Kansiwala ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others ...Respondent(s)

2. CWP-15709-2000 (O&M)

Makan Dharamshala Kansiwala ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others ...Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Kamal Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr. Ankur Jain, Advocate for respondents No.6(i), (ii), 8, 11(iii) and (iv).

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP-4786-1993

2. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders passed by Revenue Authorities whereby respondent has declared its land as surplus land.

3. The petitioner claims that it is a religious and charitable institution of Udasin Sampradai and holds large property in the form of buildings, land, houses, shops and dharamshalas in different parts of the country. Sanction regarding appointment of its Mohatmim is accorded by Government. The petitioner owns a dharmashala in Village Salina, Tehsil Moga which was built more than 120 years back for religious teaching, free food and boarding to general public. The land was donated to institution by Zamindars.

4. The Special Collector, Chandigarh vide order dated 22.04.1960 under Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short ‘1953 Act’) declared petitioner’s 20.13 standard acre land situated in Village Salina as surplus. In the Act, there was no provision exempting religious and charitable institutions. There was provision exempting religious institutions in PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (for short ‘1955 Act’).

5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that land of petitioner was declared surplus under 1953 Act vide order dated 22.04.1960. Leaving aside possession, order of allotment was passed after coming into force Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (for short ‘1972 Act’). As per Full Bench judgment of this Court in ‘Ranjit Ram Versus Financial Commissioner Revenue’, AIR 1981 P&H 313 in case land declared surplus under Punjab Law or PEPSU Law is not utilized prior to coming into force 1972 Act, fresh order is required to be passed in terms of Sections 4 and 5 of 1972 Act. The petitioner is a religious and charitable institution and as per Section 14, its land cannot be declared surplus. This issue needs to be examined afresh.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submit that land in question was declared surplus prior to 1972 Act. At that point of time, no religious and charitable institution was excluded from the purview of 1953 Act. Land of petitioner was declared surplus under 1953 Act, thus, authorities rightly declared land in question as surplus. The petitioner, in any case, does not fall within definition of “religious or charitable institution”. The petitioner never challenged order whereby its property was declared surplus. The order declaring land in question as surplus has attained finality.

7. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

8. From the perusal of record, it is evident that petitioner’s land was declared surplus vide order dated 22.04.1960. Said order was never challenged. The land was declared surplus under 1953 Act which was repealed by 1972 Act. Land in question was neither allotted nor transferred to private respondents prior to 1972 Act. The petitioner is claiming that it is still having possession over the alleged surplus land.

9. A full Bench of this Court in Ranjit Ram (supra) has held that where land is declared surplus under 1953 Act or 1955 Act, however, is not utilized prior to coming into force 1972 Act, fresh order is required to be passed cons