JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - This judgment shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing C.W.P. Nos. 4142 of 1992 and 2548 of 1982. 2. Civil Writ Petition No. 4124 of 1992 has been filed by the allottees of the surplus land under the Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme, 1960 (for short, the Scheme) issued under Section 32-J of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), being eligible tenants, challenging the order dated 16.11.1967 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab; Order dated 23.9.1968 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Collector (Agrarian), Kapurthala and order dated 8.1.1970 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. 3. Civil Writ Petition No. 2548 of 1982 has been filed by the subsequent purchasers of the allotted land from the allottees to whom the land was allotted under the aforesaid Scheme. In this writ petition, they are also challenging the orders as challenged by the petitioners in C.W.P. No. 4124 of 1992. 4. The facts are being taken from C.W.P. No. 4124 of 1992. 5. One Smt. Sodhan (grandmother of respondents No. 3 to 6) was a big land owner. She was owning a large tract of land in villages Sheikhupur and Kapurthala. On promulgation of the Act, she was required to file a return of her land holdings under Section 32-B of the Act, but she did not file such return and later her case was taken up for declaration of surplus area by the Collector, Land Reforms, Kapurthala. The Collector issued draft statement dated 1.10.1960 to the above-said land owner under Section 32-D(2) of the Act. Vide order dated 29.11.1960 (Annexure P-1), the Collector, Land Reforms, Kapurthala declared 59.12-1/2 standard acres as surplus area out of her holdings only in village Sheikhupur after allowing her 30 standard acres as her permissible area, 3.3 standard acres as her share in the increase of land during consolidation proceedings and a further area of 6.14 standard acres as her orchard, under the provisions of the Act. The aforesaid order was passed by the Collector, Land Reforms, after providing her an opportunity of hearing. At that time, she did not disclose about her land in village Kapurthala. 6. The aforesaid order was passed by the Collector, Land Reforms, after providing her an opportunity of hearing. At that time, she did not disclose about her land in village Kapurthala. 6. Later on, it came to the notice of the authorities under the Act that the aforesaid Smt. Sodhan was owning some more land in Kapurthala, which was not included in her ownership while calculating the surplus area. After collecting the requisite information, a notice under Section 32-BB(1) and 33-C of the Act was issued on her for not disclosing her land in Kapurthala. Thereupon, the Collector, Land Reforms, Kapurthala reviewed/recalled his earlier order dated 29.11.1960 and declared 71 standard acres 1 unit as surplus area of the aforesaid big land owner vide his order dated 18.11.1961 (Annexure P-2). Since the big land owner included the entire area of Kapurthala in her permissible area, therefore, 11.4-1/2 standard acres more was declared as surplus area in village Sheikhupur. Thus, the total land measuring 71 standard acres 1 unit was declared as surplus area of the big land owner, Smt. Sodhan. This order was a supplementary order. The aforesaid order was not challenged by Smt. Sodhan and this order became final under Section 32-D(5) of the Act. 7. On 29.3.1962, the aforesaid surplus land vested in the Government as Smt. Sodhan received compensation assessed under the Act, and possession of the surplus land was taken by the authorities. Thereafter on 2.6.1962, the surplus area was allotted to the petitioners and other landless persons as eligible tenants under the Scheme. The possession was delivered to the allottees. According to the petitioners, they paid all the instalments for the land allotted to them and on payment of all the instalments, the petitioners became owners of the land in question. 8. In the year 1964, Smt. Sodhan expired leaving behind her the only daughter, namely, Smt. Satyawati (mother of respondents No. 3 to 6). In the year 1965, Smt. Satyawati moved an application to the Collector, Land Reforms, Kapurthala that the surplus area determined by him in respect of her mothers land should be correctly demarcated and the other co-sharers, who were her uncles should not be allowed to effect sales of the land to the detriment of her interest. She did not file this application for review of the order dated 18.11.1961. She did not file this application for review of the order dated 18.11.1961. However, on 14.12.1965, the Collector wrongly made a reference to the Commissioner for allowing him to review the order dated 18.11.1961 passed by his predecessor, on the ground that some land of the big land owner was Muafi land which was in possession of the Muafidar, therefore, the same should not have been included in the holding of big land owner Smt. Sodhan. It is pertinent to mention her that before making the above-said reference, the Collector did not provide any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or any other allottees of the surplus land. The Commissioner vide his order dated 21.12.1965 granted permission to the Collector, Land Reforms to review his earlier order. The Commissioner also neither provided an opportunity of hearing nor issued any notice to the petitioners or any other allottee. The order dated 21.12.1965 only says "permission granted". 9. Thereafter, the Collector, Land Reforms vide his order dated 10.5.1966 reviewed the earlier order dated 18.11.1961 and reduced the surplus area of the big land owner of Smt. Sodhan from 71.1 standard acres and declared only 44 standard acres 11-1/4 units as her surplus area. This reduction was made on account of exclusion of the area which was alleged to be in possession of the Muafidar. As a result of the aforesaid change, it was also ordered that the allotment already made stood upset and the allotment of surplus area was to be reviewed by the Naib Tehsildar (Agrarian). Those tenants who were settled on the area exempted would have to be ejected and they were ordered to be re-settled in another declared surplus area in another village. It is again pertinent to mention that this order was also passed without issuing any notice to the petitioners and other allottees of the land in question. 10. Against the aforesaid order, two sets of allottees, including the petitioners, filed appeals before the Commissioner. After hearing those appeals, the learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that the order dated 10.5.1966 passed by the Collector, Land Reforms was not legal. However, he observed that since the learned Collector, Land Reforms passed the aforesaid order in pursuance of the permission given to him by the learned Commissioner (his predecessor), any decision taken by him would automatically involve the setting aside of the order of the Commissioner. However, he observed that since the learned Collector, Land Reforms passed the aforesaid order in pursuance of the permission given to him by the learned Commissioner (his predecessor), any decision taken by him would automatically involve the setting aside of the order of the Commissioner. Therefore, these appeals were treated as revisions and he referred the aforesaid revisions by making reference to the Financial Commissioner, Punjab with the recommendation that the appeals filed by the allottees/tenants (petitioners) be accepted; the order dated 10.5.1966 passed by the Collector, Land Reforms be quashed; the order dated 21.12.1965 passed by the Commissioner according permission to the Collector to re-open the case should also be quashed; and the order dated 18.11.1961 passed by the Collector, Land Reforms, Kapurthala be restored. 11. The aforesaid reference was decided by the Financial Commissioner, Taxation vide his order dated 16.11.1987 (Annexure P-4). The reference made by the Commissioner was accepted and the order dated 10.5.1966 passed by the Collector, Land Reforms was set aside. However, it was held that the order of the Collector, Land Reforms dated 18.11.1961 vide which he reviewed the earlier order dated 29.11.1960 was without jurisdiction as there was no power of review with him, therefore, the said order dated 18.11.1961 was also set aside and a direction was issued to the Collector under Section 32-D of the Act (suo-motu power) to re-open the whole case and determine the surplus area with the land owner afresh after taking into consideration her total holding on the crucial day in both the villages and after hearing all the parties concerned, including the Muafidar as well as the tenants now settled on the land earlier declared surplus with the land owner, in accordance with law. 12. After the remand, the matter was re-opened. The Collector, Land Reforms vide his order dated 23.9.1968 (Annexure P-5) reduced the surplus area of big land owner and declared 44 standard acres 11-1/4 units as surplus area in the hand of Smt. Sodhan. After declaring the aforesaid land as surplus area, the allotments already made by the authorities were upset and a direction was issued to the Naib Tehsildar (Agrarian) to review the allotment of the surplus area and the tenants who already settled on the area, which was declared surplus, were ordered to be ejected and they were directed to be re-settled elsewhere on some other surplus area. 13. 13. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional Secretary, Revenue (exercising the powers of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar). The said appeal was dismissed by the commissioner vide order dated 8.1.1970 (Annexure P-6) and the order of the Collector dated 23.9.1968 was affirmed. Thereafter, feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed revision before the Financial Commissioner. The said revision was accepted by the learned Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab vide his order dated 9.2.1972 (Annexure P-7) and the orders dated 23.9.1968 passed by the Collector and 8.1.1970 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, were set aside and the orders dated 29.11.1960 and 18.11.1961 passed by the Collector, Land Reforms, Kapurthala, determining the surplus area of Smt. Sodhan, were restored. In brief, it was held by the Financial Commissioner as under :- (a) That the surplus area declared under the Act stood acquired by the State under Section 32-E of the Act in 1962. (b) That the case of Smt. Satya Wati could not be reopened particularly as Smt. Sodhan did not contest the orders dated 29.11.1960 and 18.11.1961 by way of appeal etc. (c) That the order dated 18.11.1961 did not set aside the Collectors order dated 29.11.1960. (d) That the order dated 18.11.1961 of Collector was not passed on review; and (e) That the order dated 16.11.1967 of his predecessor was a nullity. 14. Against the order dated 9.2.1972 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Smt. Satyawati filed C.W.P. No. 1562 of 1972 before this Court. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 19.1.1982 and th order dated 9.2.1972 passed by the Financial Commissioner was quashed only on the jurisdictional point. It was held that in view of the Full Bench judgment in Sukhdarshan Singh and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 (P&H) 94, no revision was maintainable before the Financial Commissioner under Section 32- D(4) of the Act against the order passed by the Commissioner under sub-Section (3) of Section 32-D of the Act. This Court did not decide the merits of the case. The order dated 19.1.1982 passed by this Court is reproduced below for ready reference :- "Mr. This Court did not decide the merits of the case. The order dated 19.1.1982 passed by this Court is reproduced below for ready reference :- "Mr. Setia, counsel for the petitioners, says that this petition is to be allowed in view of the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Sukhdarshan Singh v. State of Punjab & others, 1979 P.L.J. 393. His contention is that against the order of the Collector dated 23rd September, 1968 (Annexure I), the parties went up in appeal under Section 32-D(3) of the Pepsu Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 and that further revision or appeal could not be filed against the order of the Commissioner dated 9th January, 1970 (Annexure J & K), exercising the powers of the State Government. Mr. Aulakh, learned counsel for the State does not challenge this contention of Mr. Setia. In view of the principle of law as laid down in Sukhdarshan Singhs case (supra), this petition is allowed and the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 9th February, 1972 (Annexure L) is hereby quashed as the same is passed under Section 32-D(4) of the Pepsu Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, which he could not pass. No order as to costs." 15. Feeling aggrieved against the order, the petitioners and other allottees filed L.P.A. No. 523 of 1982. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said Letters Patent Appeal in limine on 3.5.1982. Still feeling aggrieved against the dismissal of their L.P.A., the petitioners and other allottees of the surplus land filed S.L.P. No. 7165 of 1982 before the Honble Supreme Court. The same was admitted as another S.L.P against the aforesaid Full Bench judgment was pending. The said S.L.P. was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court on 6.12.1991 in view of the dismissal of the said another S.L.P. Along with the aforesaid S.L.P., the petitioners and other allottees had also filed writ Petition (Civil) No. 5613 of 1982 under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Honble Supreme Court in which they alternatively challenged the power of the Commissioner and his order on merit. In this petition, the challenge was made to the orders dated 23.9.1968 passed by the Collector and the order dated 8.1.1970 passed by the Commissioner. In this petition, the challenge was made to the orders dated 23.9.1968 passed by the Collector and the order dated 8.1.1970 passed by the Commissioner. The said writ petition was also heard by the Honble Supreme Court along with the aforesaid S.L.P. Vide order dated 6.12.1991, the Honble Supreme Court permitted the petitioners to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to challenge the order of the Commissioner on merits in the High Court. Thereupon, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition before this Court challenging the order dated 16.11.1967 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab; order dated 23.9.1968 passed by the Collector (Agrarian), Kapurthala and order dated 8.1.1970 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. 16. Civil Writ Petition No. 2548 of 1982 has been filed by the persons who have purchased the land in question either from the tenants who were originally settled on the surplus area of Smt. Sodhan by the Government or from the vendees who were originally allotted the land. According to these petitioners, they were not made parties either to the proceedings of declaring the surplus area at any stage nor they were made parties in the writ petition filed by Smt. Satyawati vide which the order dated 9.2.1972 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Taxation was set aside. Therefore, the aforesaid surplus proceedings as well as the order of the High Court was not binding on them. Their prayer in the writ petition is that the order dated 18.11.1961 passed by the Collector, Land Reforms should be restored as the said order became final. And after the said order, the big land owner was paid compensation and the land absolutely vested in the State on 29.3.1962 and thereafter the same was legally allotted to various persons (their predecessors) under the scheme and those allottees deposited the instalments and the possession was delivered to them. Since the surplus area was duly utilised by the Government by allotting the same to eligible tenants under the Scheme and even during the life time of Smt. Sodhan, possession of the area was delivered to the allottees. Therefore, the subsequent proceedings initiated at the request of the daughter of Smt. Sodhan for re-opening the surplus area case of Smt. Sodhan was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, and all those orders are liable to be quashed being null and void. 17. Therefore, the subsequent proceedings initiated at the request of the daughter of Smt. Sodhan for re-opening the surplus area case of Smt. Sodhan was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, and all those orders are liable to be quashed being null and void. 17. Pursuant to the notice issued in Civil Writ Petition No. 2548 of 1982, respondents were served. Respondent No. 4 filed the written statement on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 4. Respondent No. 6 put in appearance and stated that he did not wish to file the written statement. Thereafter, the matter was admitted by this Court on 12.11.1982. 18. Civil Writ Petition No. 4124 of 1992 was admitted on 17.5.1994 and was ordered to be heard along with Civil Writ Petition No. 2548 of 1982. When respondents No. 4 to 6 could not be served in the ordinary course, the petitioners filed Civil Misc. application No. 35912 of 2002 for effecting service upon the aforesaid respondents by way of publication. The said application was allowed by this Court on 17.1.2003. As per the office report, the aforesaid respondents were served through publication in the daily Indian Express, for 25.4.2003. In spite of that, none had appeared on behalf of the respondents No. 4 to 6 and they were accordingly proceeded against exparte on 25.7.2003; and the arguments were heard and the judgment was reserved. 19. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing on behalf of the official respondents. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioners was first asked to address the arguments on the maintainability of the instant writ petition, in view of the fact that the earlier order dated 9.2.1972 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner was set aside by this Court in C.W.P. No. 1562 of 1972 and the Letters Patent Appeals as well as Special Leave Petition filed against the said judgment were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 3.5.1982 and by the Honble Supreme Court on 6.12.1991, respectively. The petitioners counsel was asked to explain whether the aforesaid orders would operate as res judicata against them. The petitioners counsel was asked to explain whether the aforesaid orders would operate as res judicata against them. In reply to the Courts query, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 9.2.1972 passed by the Financial Commissioner was set aside by this Court only on technical point, i.e., the revision filed by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner under sub-section (4) of Section 32-D against the order passed by the Commissioner under sub-section (3) of Section 32-D of the Act was not maintainable in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Sukhdarsan Singhs case (supra). Neither the entire matter was considered on merits nor the same was decided on merits. The learned counsel further submitted that against the aforesaid order, the petitioners and other allottees filed writ petition (Civil) No. 5613 of 1992 in the Honble Supreme Court challenging the order dated 23.9.1968 passed by the Collector and the order dated 8.1.1970 passed by the Commissioner. In that writ petition, it was the contention of the petitioners that if the Financial Commissioner was not competent to hear revision against the order dated 8.1.1970 passed by the Commissioner under sub-section (3) of Section 32-D of the Act, then the petitioners should have been allowed to challenge the aforesaid order of the Collector as well as the Commissioner in the writ petition. The Honble Supreme Court though dismissed the S.L.P. affirming the order dated 19.1.1982 passed by this Court yet the Honble Supreme Court specifically allowed the petitioners to challenge the order of the Commissioner on merits in this Court. In the aforesaid writ petition of the petitioners, the Honble Supreme Court passed the following order :- "The petitioner filed this writ petition as an alternative to challenge the power of the Commissioner. The petitioner seeks to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to challenge the order of the Commissioner on merits in the High Court. Liberty is given. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs." 21. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the aforesaid liberty granted to the petitioners by the Honble Supreme Court, they have filed the instant writ petition and the same is maintainable and the decision given by this Court vide order dated 19.1.1982 was not on merits of the case and the same will not operate as res judicata. 22. 22. I find force in the aforesaid submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. It is clear from the record that this Court while passing the order on 19.1.1982 did not decide the instant controversy on merits and the order of the Financial Commissioner was set aside in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Sukhdarshan Singhs case (supra). Since the Honble Supreme Court had already upheld the Full Bench decision in Sukhdarshan Singhs case (supra), therefore, the S.L.P. filed by the petitioners against the orders dated 19.1.1982 and 3.5.1982 passed by this Court, was also dismissed. However, the writ petition filed by the petitioners with an alternative prayer for challenging the order of the Commissioner was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to challenge the aforesaid order in the writ petition. In view of this order and in view of the fact that this Court did not determine the validity of the order of the Commissioner dated 9.1.1970 on merits, I am of the opinion that the instant writ petition filed by the petitioners challenging the order of the Commissioner as well as the Collector is maintainable. In addition to that, in C.W.P. No. 2548 of 1982, the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 16.11.1967, 23.9.1968 and 8.1.1970 as they were not heard while passing the aforesaid orders, in spite of the fact that they had purchased the surplus land from the allottees. The said writ petition was admitted long back and C.W.P. No. 4124 of 1992 was ordered to be heard along with the same. In view of this, I permitted the learned counsel for the petitioners to address the arguments on merits. 23. On merits of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioners raised the following contentions :- (a) That the order dated 18.11.1961 (Annexure P-2) vide which the Collector, Land Reforms declared 71.1 standard acres of land of Smt. Sodhan as surplus area was a supplementary order to his earlier order dated 29.11.1960. To rectify the clerical mistake and accidental omission in calculating the surplus area held by the big land owner Smt. Sodhan, the aforesaid order was passed after issuing notice to Smt. Sodhan and after providing an opportunity of hearing to her. She did not challenge that order by filing any appeal. To rectify the clerical mistake and accidental omission in calculating the surplus area held by the big land owner Smt. Sodhan, the aforesaid order was passed after issuing notice to Smt. Sodhan and after providing an opportunity of hearing to her. She did not challenge that order by filing any appeal. Therefore, under Section 32-D(5) of the Act, the said order became final and subsequently the Collector was not competent to review the said order. (b) That after declaration of the surplus area in the hand of Smt. Sodhan vide aforesaid order dated 18.11.1961, the compensation payable to the big land owner was assessed and a sum of Rs. 6722.50 was paid to Smt. Sodhan as compensation on 29.3.1962. Thereafter, the possession was taken from the big land owner. After taking the possession, the surplus land was allotted to the eligible tenants and other landless persons under the scheme which was prepared under Section 32-J of the Act and the possession of the allotted land was given to the allottees on 2.6.1962. All these things happened during the life time of Smt. Sodhan to which she never raised any objection. (c) That in view of Section 32-E(a) of the Act, the land which had been declared surplus was absolutely vested in the State at the time of taking possession of the same by the State and thereafter the same shall be deemed to be absolutely vested in the State; and thereafter all rights, title and interest of the big land owners in the said land had extinguished and vested in the State Government. (d) That after the allotment, the petitioners and other allottees took the possession and paid all the instalments for the land allotted to them and on payment of the instalments, they became owners of the land in question. (e) That in the year 1965, the daughter of Smt. Sodhan only moved an application before the Collector with a prayer for correct demarcation of the land which was given to Smt. Sodhan as her permissible area so that the other co-sharers, who were her uncles, should not effect the sales of the land to her detriment. She did not file any application for review of the order dated 18.11.1961. She did not file any application for review of the order dated 18.11.1961. However, the learned Collector in an illegal and arbitrary manner and without issuing any notice to the allottees, who were in actual physical possession of the land declared surplus, sought permission from the Commissioner vide order dated 14.12.1965 for review of the order dated 18.11.1961. The Commissioner without issuing any notice to the petitioners and the other allottees; and without providing any opportunity of hearing to them accorded the said permission in an illegal manner vide his order dated 21.12.1965. Both these orders dated 14.12.1965 and 21.12.1965 were totally without jurisdiction. (f) That the order dated 10.5.1966 vide which the Collector reviewed the order dated 18.11.1961 was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. (g) That on the appeal filed by the petitioners which was treated as revision, the Commissioner rightly recommended to the Financial Commissioner for setting aside the order dated 10.5.1966. Though the Financial Commissioner accepted the recommendation of the Commissioner yet he set aside the order dated 18.11.1961 in exercise of his suo motu power under Section 32-D(4) of the Act while observing that the Collector, Land Reforms was not competent to review his order dated 29.11.1960 and the other dated 18.11.1961 passed by him was thus without jurisdiction. The order dated 16.11.1967 passed by the Financial Commissioner for ordering the re-opening of the whole case in exercise of his suo motu power was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction particularly when the said order became final and was never challenged by the big land owner, and thereafter the surplus land declared under the said order was further allotted to the eligible tenants under the Scheme and possession was handed over to them. (h) That the order dated 23.9.1968 passed by the Collector vide which the surplus area of the big land owner was reduced to 46.2 standard acres, was wholly illegal, arbitrary and without any basis. Vide his order, the big land owner was illegally given the benefit of 26 standard acres 5.5- 1/4 units on the grounds that such area was Muafi land and was in possession of Muafidar. The aforesaid benefit was given to the big land owner without any basis. No detail of Muafidar was given in the order. Vide his order, the big land owner was illegally given the benefit of 26 standard acres 5.5- 1/4 units on the grounds that such area was Muafi land and was in possession of Muafidar. The aforesaid benefit was given to the big land owner without any basis. No detail of Muafidar was given in the order. This land was excluded by the Collector from the surplus area of the land owner under clause (c) of sub- section (1) of Section 51 of the Act. The said clause was not applicable on such kind of Muafi land and it was only applicable to religious and charitable institutions. Thus, the orders passed by the Collector on 23.9.1968 and upheld by the Commissioner vide order dated 8.1.1970 are wholly illegal and liable to be set aside. 24. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, I am of the opinion that this writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned orders dated 16.11.1967 (Annexure P- 4), passed by the Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab; dated 23.9.1968 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Collector (Agrarian), Kapurthala and dated 8.1.1970 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar, Jalandhar are liable to be set aside. 25. Undisputedly, Smt. Sodhan was owning land in two villages, namely, Sheikhupur and Kapurthala. Initially, she did not disclose her land in village Kapurthala when originally her surplus case was determined by the Collector, Land Reforms vide his order dated 29.11.1960. Vide that order, her 59.12-1/2 standard acres land was declared as surplus. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the authorities that the big land owner Smt. Sodhan was also owing land in village Kapurthala. The detail of the said land was not furnished by the big land owner at the time of earlier determination of her surplus area. Consequently, proceedings were initiated against her under Sections 32-BB(1) and 33-C of the Act. In those proceedings, she had stated that she was a widow and her share in the joint holding was being looked after by the brother of her deceased husband, therefore, she was not aware about the land situated in village Kapurthala. Consequently, proceedings were initiated against her under Sections 32-BB(1) and 33-C of the Act. In those proceedings, she had stated that she was a widow and her share in the joint holding was being looked after by the brother of her deceased husband, therefore, she was not aware about the land situated in village Kapurthala. By taking a lenient view, the Collector did not impose any penalty on her as provided under Section 32-BB of the Act and the big land owner was asked to give her fresh choice of selecting her permissible area. Thereafter, an additional area of 11 standard acres 4-1/2 units was declared as surplus area by the Collector vide his order dated 18.11.1961 after providing due opportunity of hearing to the big land owner. Smt. Sodhan did not contest the said order as no appeal or revision was filed against that order though a right of appeal was provided under sub-Section (2) of Section 32-D of the Act. Not only that, the compensation of the surplus area which was payable to the big land owner, was assessed under Section 32-G of the Act and paid to Smt. Sodhan on 29.3.1962 under Section 32-H of the Act. The possession of the declared surplus land was taken under Section 32-F of the Act. The said surplus land was further utilised by allotment to the eligible persons in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme prepared under Section 32-J of the Act. The petitioners were allotted the aforesaid surplus land being eligible tenants and the possession was given to them on 2.6.1962. With the taking of the possession of the surplus area by the State Government, the title of the landlords extinguished and such land absolutely vested in the State under Section 32-F of the Act. The Honble Supreme Court in Ujjagar Singh v. Collector, Bathinda, (1996) 5 SCC 14 and Harnek Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Appeals), (2001) 9 SCC 480 held that when the possession of the land which was declared as surplus area is taken over by the State Government, then such surplus area shall be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and absolutely vest in it and all rights, title and interest of such person concerned in such land are extinguished. 26. 26. It is also undisputed that in the year 1964, Smt. Sodhan expired and prior to that the surplus land declared in her hand was absolutely vested in the State and was also utilised. Therefore, after her death, there was no occasion for reviewing/re-opening the order dated 18.11.1961, but the Collector, Land Reforms illegally entertained the application filed by Smt. Satyawati, daughter of Smt. Sodhan and illegally sought permission from the Commissioner to review the order dated 18.11.1961. Smt. Satyawati filed the said application for correct demarcation of the surplus land and the permissible area so that the other co-sharers of Smt. Sodhan may not sell her permissible land. But the Collector, Land Reforms sought review of the order dated 18.11.1961 on the ground that some of the land which was in possession of Muafidar was wrongly declared as surplus. In my view, the Collector was having no jurisdiction to seek review of the order dated 18.11.1961 particularly when the said order became final and the surplus land declared under the said order absolutely vested in the State and also utilised under the Scheme. There is no provision in the Act under which permission to review could be accorded to the Collector by the Commissioner. Under sub-Section (3) of Section 32-D of the Act, the Commissioner exercised the power of State Government to hear appeal against the order of Collector passed under sub- Section (2) of Section 32-D of the Act. However, under sub-Section (4) of Section 32-D of the Act, the State Government, without prejudice to any action under sub-Section (3), may of its own motion call for any record relating to the draft statement at any time and after affording the person concerned an opportunity of being heard, pass such order as it may deem fit. The powers of State Government under sub-section (4) have been delegated to Financial Commissioner. Therefore, the Commissioner was not having any power to grant permission to review the order dated 18.11.1961. When the permission was granted by the Commissioner, another illegality was committed by him. No notice was issued to the petitioners and others allottees of the land to whom the surplus land was allotted under the Scheme nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to them. The reduction of the surplus area of Smt. Sodhan would certainly going to be affected to the allottees. No notice was issued to the petitioners and others allottees of the land to whom the surplus land was allotted under the Scheme nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to them. The reduction of the surplus area of Smt. Sodhan would certainly going to be affected to the allottees. In spite of that fact, the allottees were not heard. Thereafter, the Collector vide his order dated 10.5.1966 reviewed the earlier order dated 18.11.1961 and reduced the surplus area in the hand of Smt. Sodhan from 71.1 standard acres to 44 standard acres 11 units. While passing that order also, the Collector did not issue any notice and provided any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other allottees of the land. In their absence, the adverse order was passed against them. When the petitioners and other allottees came to know about this fact, they filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner came to the conclusion that the order dated 10.5.1966 passed by the Collector was absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction but since the Collector was granted permission by the previous Commissioner for re-opening the case, the Commissioner deemed it appropriate to refer the matter to the Financial Commissioner with the recommendation that the order dated 10.5.1966 passed by the Collector be set aside and all the proceedings from stage of passing of the order dated 21.12.1965 be quashed. 27. The aforesaid recommendation of the Commissioner was accepted by the Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 16.11.1967. Once the aforesaid recommendation was accepted, there was no occasion left with the Financial Commissioner to set aside the order dated 18.11.1961 in exercise of the suo motu powers under Section 32-D(4) of the Act, particularly when the said order became final long back and the surplus area declared under the said order was already utilised by the State Government for allotting the same to the eligible tenants under the Scheme. In my opinion, the reasoning given by the Financial Commissioner in his order dated 16.11.1967 that the order dated 18.11.1961 was without jurisdiction as the Collector was having no right to review his earlier order, is without any basis. Actually the order dated 18.11.1961 was not an order of review. That order was a supplementary order vide which the additional land of the big land owner was declared surplus as she concealed her land holding in village Kapurthala. Actually the order dated 18.11.1961 was not an order of review. That order was a supplementary order vide which the additional land of the big land owner was declared surplus as she concealed her land holding in village Kapurthala. Merely because the Collector while passing the order dated 18.11.1961 had casually observed that he had reviewed the earlier order dated 29.11.1960 in exercise of his power of review under Section 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, that order did not become the order of review. The order of the Financial Commissioner vide which he directed the Collector to re-open the whole case of the big land owner to determine her surplus area afresh after taking into consideration her total holding on the crucial day, was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The question of re-opening of the surplus area case of Smt. Sodhan after her death does not arise, particularly when by accepting the said order she had received the compensation and did not choose to file appeal against the order dated 18.11.1961. 28. In my opinion, at that stage, the Financial Commissioner was not having any jurisdiction to exercise the suo-motu power of the State Government under sub-Section (4) of Section 32-D of the Act. Under this sub-section, the State Government may of its own motion call for the record relating to the draft statement at any time and pass such order as it may deem fit. But once the draft statement was made final, then the same can not be questioned in any Court or before any authority. Sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 32-D of the Act provide as under :- (5) Any order of the State Government under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) or of the Collector subject to the decision of the State Government under those sub-section shall be final. (6) The draft statement shall then be made final in terms of the order if the Collector or the State Government, as the case may be, or in terms of the advice of the Pepsu Land Commission regarding exemption from the ceiling claimed by the landowner (if any), and published in the official Gazette and no person shall then be entitled to question it in any court or before any authority. 29. 29. From the reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the Financial Commissioner was not competent and was having no valid reasons for exercise of the suo-motu power of the State Government for re-opening of the surplus case of Smt. Sodhan, at the stage when the surplus land was already utilised by the Government by making allotment of the same under the Scheme. The Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 16.11.1967, re-opened the surplus area case of Smt. Sodhan by observing as under :- "It may, however, be added that the order of the Collector Agrarian dated 18.11.1961 passed in review also cannot be sustained as there is no power of review provided in the Act. This order too is therefore set aside. As regards additional area found surplus with the landowner which she had not previously declared as a part of her holding on the crucial day, I direct the Collector of the District (Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala) u/s 32-D of the Act to reopen the whole case and determine the area surplus with the landowner afresh after taking into consideration her total holding on the crucial day and after hearing all the parties concerned including the muafidars as well as the tenants, now settled on the land earlier declared surplus with the landowner, in accordance with law. The parties have been instructed to appear before the Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Kapurthala. On 19.12.67." 30. The Financial Commissioner, while passing the aforesaid order, did not take into consideration that order dated 18.11.1961 become final under Section 32-D of the Act and Smt. Sodhan had also expired. The question of re-opening the surplus area case of Smt. Sodhan after her death did not arise. 31. The order dated 23.9.1968 passed by the Collector vide which the surplus area of the big land owner was re-determined and reduced from 71.1 standard acres to 44 standard acres 11 units, was also illegal and unjustified. The Collector, Land Reforms. vide his order dated 23.9.1968 excluded 23 acres 7- 1/2 units land from the total holdings of Smt. Sodhan on the ground that this land was in possession of Muafidars who were Prohits of Hardwar and Thakurdwara. No provision of law has been mentioned under which this benefit was granted to the big landowner. The Collector, Land Reforms. vide his order dated 23.9.1968 excluded 23 acres 7- 1/2 units land from the total holdings of Smt. Sodhan on the ground that this land was in possession of Muafidars who were Prohits of Hardwar and Thakurdwara. No provision of law has been mentioned under which this benefit was granted to the big landowner. In this regard, the Collector gave only reason that the big landowner could not enjoy the possession of such land therefore such land could not be included in the total holding of the big landowner. In my opinion, there was no justification in reducing the surplus area of the landowner on this ground, particularly when the surplus land declared in the hand of Smt. Sodhan was already utilised. The Commissioner vide his order dated 8.1.1970 confirmed the aforesaid order of the Collector without properly appreciating and considering the question of fact and law involved in this case. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the part of the order dated 16.11.1967 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Financial Commissioner, vide which he ordered for re-opening the surplus area case of Smt. Sodhan, order dated 23.9.1968 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Collector and order dated 8.1.1970 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Commissioner are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are liable to be quashed. 32. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I allow both the writ petitions and quash the part of the order dated 16.11.967 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab, vide which the order dated 18.11.1961 was set aside and direction was issued for re-opening the surplus area case of Smt. Sodhan; order dated 23.9.1968 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Collector (Agrarian), Kapurthala and order dated 8.1.1970 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar; and restore the order dated 18.11.1961 passed by the Collector, Land Reforms, Kapurthala. No order as to costs. Petitions allowed.