Judgment:
V.K. Bali, J.
1. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 4355 of 1980 filed on behalf of the land-owner as also Civil Writ Petition Nos. 315 and 316 of 1982 filed on behalf of the vendees from the land-owner. The facts of the case have, however, been extracted from petition No. 4355 of 1980, which are as follow :-
Ajmer Singh was a big land-owner and the concerned authority, i. e. the Collector (Agrarian), vide his order dated April 15, 1959 declared 3 Standard Acres and 5 1/2 Units of land belonging to Ajmer Singh as surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The matter was agitated by Ajmer Singh and the appeal filed by him before Commissioner was dismissed on December 4, 1979 on the solitary ground that the same was barred by time. Still being aggrieved, Ajmer Singh filed revision before the Financial Commissioner, which too did not find favour with him and the same was also dismissed vide his order dated August 1, 1980. The land-owner, Ajmer Singh, has approached this Court for setting aside the orders aforesaid, primarily on the ground that inasmuch as Form 'F' which was issued under Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956, was served upon Ajmer Singh on October 17, 1980, as is apparently made out even from the contents of paragraph 6 of the written statement filed in the present case and that being so, the limitation to agitate the impugned orders was sixty days from the date of service of Form 'F' and not from the date of the order. It as much as Ajmer Singh died during the pendency of the present petition, the second point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land having not been utilized, the same had to be re-assessed under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. ft requires to be mentioned here that other two petitions have been filed by the vendees, who are stated to have purchased the land in the year 1954, i. e. prior to the order declaring the land of Ajmer Singh as surplus.
2. It is contended on behalf of these petitioners that they were necessary parties in the surplus proceedings and having not been admittedly heard, the impugned orders have to fail on that ground also.
3. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, the facts, as narrated above, have not been disputed. It is, however, pleaded that inasmuch as Ajmer Singh was present at the time when the order dated April 15, 1959 by the Collector (Agrarian) was passed, the limitation would commence from the date of passing of the order or at the most from the date when certified copy of the order was made available to him.
4. Mr. Sarjit Singh, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, who is stated to be daughter-in-law of Amarjeet Kaur, who in turn, was widow of Ajmer Singh, contends that the orders passed by the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner holding that the appeal filed by Ajmer Singh, was barred by time, are wholly illegal and cannot sustain. It is contended that the starting point of limitation is the date of communication of the decision as only service of Form 'F' on the tenant or landlord creates a right of appeal as also that the presence of the parties at the time of decision is not material In support of the contention aforesaid, the learned counsel relies upon the decisions of this Court reported as Vir Singh v. The state of Punjab , (1970) 72 P. L. R. 304. and Nanak Singh v. State of Haryana , 1991 P. L. J. 675. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of Ranjit Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab , (1981) 83 P. L. R. 492 (F. B.). and Ajit Kaur v. Punjab State , 1980 P. L. J. 354 (F.B.). which are judgments of Full Bench of this Court, that on demise of a big land owner, the land declared surplus, which has not been utilised, has to be re-assessed for computing the surplus area under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. As noticed above, the learned counsel for the vendee-petitioners in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 315 and 316 of 1982 contends that the petitioners were the necessary parties and notice ought to have been issued to them, failure of which would vitiate the proceedings culminating into the order passed by the revenue authorities, inclusive of the order dated April 15, 1959.
5. The learned counsel for State, however, contests the points, as noticed above, and contends that it is the date of order from where limitation shall have to be computed, more so, when Ajmer Singh was present when the impugned order dated April 15, 1959 was passed.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the land-owner as well as the transferees. It is true that the limitation would start from the date of communication of the decision, which is communicated by specific mode, .i. e. service by Form 'F' on the land-owner. In Vir Singh's case (supra), it was held that the combined reading of sub-rules (6), (7) and (8) of Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules clearly indicates that the limitation is to start from the date of the communication of the decision and how that communication is made, is by service of Form 'F' on the land-owner. As prescribed under sub-rule (6) the area is declared surplus after going into the objections which may be preferred by the land-owner or the tenant and thereafter under sub-rule (7) an imperative duty is cast on the Collector or the Special Collector to prepare a statement in Form 'F' and forward it immediately for service on the land-owner or the tenant. The purpose of serving this Form on the landowner or the tenant is to let him know the actual decision of the Collector giving detailed statement as to what area has been declared surplus and which area has been left at his (land-owner's or tenant's) permissible area. The Order passed under sub-rule (6) together with the statement in Form 'F' constitutes the actual decision of the Collector affecting a landowner or a tenant. It is after the service of Form 'F' that the person concerned knows his actual position and the decision made against him. It is for this reason that the framers of the rule have made it imperative that the land-owner or the tenant concerned should be served with Form 'F' as given in sub-rule (7.) The period of limitation in the present case, thus, commences from the date when Form 'F' was served on Ajmer Singh, which is admitted to be October 17, 1980 i. e. even after the orders were passed by the Financial Commissioner. The appeal filed by Ajmer Singh was, thus, within limitation and was wrongly rejected as time barred. The orders passed by the Collector dated April 15, 1959 as also passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner deserve to be set aside on that score alone. However, if that course alone is adopted, the matter shall have to be re-agitated on merits before the revenue authorities which will, in my view, be a futile exercise. It is not disputed that the original land-owner Ajmer Singh died during the pendency of the present petition and also that during all these years the land was not utilized. That being so, the ratio of decision in Ranjit Ram's case (supra) clearly coves the case of the petitioners and, therefore, the land in hand of the present owners has necessarily to be assessed for computing the surplus area, if any, under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972.
7. In view of what has been stated above, the order dated April 15, 1959 passed by the Collector as also passed by the Commissioner on December 4, 1979 and the Financial Commissioner on August 1, 1980 are set aside. It shall, however, be open to the authorities to re-assess the land in the hand of Surinder Kaur, who as referred above is daughter-in-law of Ajmer Singh, under the provisions of Punjab Land Reforms Act. 1972. It is, however, made clear that if any such exercise is done, the vendees from Ajmer Singh shall also be heard. The petition is decided in the manner, indicated above but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.