JUDGMENT J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral) - The petitioner addressed a communication (Annexure P-1) to the Assistant Collector, Agrarian, Abohar, depicting his ownership in respect of 484 kanals 8 marlas of land in village Mehrajpura and Sitogunno on the appointed date i.e. 24.1.1971. He also expressed his ownership alongwith his wife over 166 kanals 13 marlas of land as mortgagees. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner acknowledged ownership over 631 kanals 01 marla of land as on 24.1.1971. The aforesaid land was classified as Nehri, Barani, Banjar Jadid and Gairmumkin. On the basis of the aforesaid classifications, when converted into land of first quality, it was concluded that the land owned by the petitioner was equal to 15.6720 hectares. 2. While determining the issue of release, the Collector, Abohar, by his order dated 29.10.1976 arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to retain 7 hectares of first quality land as his permissible area. On the basis of the aforesaid conclusion, he held that land measuring 8.6720 hectares of first quality in the hands of the petitioner was surplus. Accordingly, a notice under Section 9(1) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 1972 Act) was issued to the petitioner directing him to deliver possession of the surplus land. 3. As against the aforesaid determination, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the 1972 Act. The aforesaid appeal was disposed of by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur on 6.4.1983. A perusal of the appellate order dated 6.4.1983 reveals that the claim of the petitioner raised in the appeal was not accepted. Dissatisfied with the order of the Collector, Abohar dated 29.10.1976 and the order of the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur dated 6.4.1983, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. The aforesaid revision petition was dismissed on 24.10.1983. All the aforestated orders are subject matter of challenge at the hands of the petitioner in the instant writ petition. 4. Before this Court, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land purchased by the tenants under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 1953 Act) could not be counted towards the permissible area of the petitioner as provided under Section 15 of the 1972 Act. Before this Court, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land purchased by the tenants under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 1953 Act) could not be counted towards the permissible area of the petitioner as provided under Section 15 of the 1972 Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner in substantiating his aforesaid contention, has invited the Courts attention to Annexures P-7 and P-8, depicting orders passed by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Fazilka dated 10.8.1960, reflecting the purchase of land measuring 54 bighas 2 biswas situated in village Sitogunno, by Sohan Lal and the purchase of land measuring 40 bighas situated in village Mehrajpura, by the same Sohan Lal. In response to the aforesaid averments, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently contended that the lands depicted as having been purchased by the tenants from the petitioner vide Annexures P-7 and P-8, were not included in the permissible area of the petitioner as determined by the Collector, Abohar by his order dated 29.10.1976, and as such, the instant contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be rejected. 5. There is no doubt that the issue of exemption would arise only if the land, which is subject matter of Annexures P-7 and P-8 had been included while determining the total land owned by the petitioner on the appointed date i.e. 24.1.1971. It is, however, clear from the pleadings that the lands purchased by Sohan Lal vide Annexures P-7 and P-8 were not included in the permissible area of the petitioner and, therefore, there is no question of release of an area equal to the area purchased by the aforesaid Sohan Lal vide Annexures P-7 and P-8. 6. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Sohan Lal son of Bhagwana, Ram Partapa, Govinda, Bhajan Lal and Phusa were his tenants on the land, and as such, the area of land under the tenants could not be counted towards permissible area of the petitioner. In this behalf, reliance was placed on the decisions rendered by this Court in Vijay Kumar and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 1980 PLJ 248 and Prem Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 1981 PLJ 159. 7. In this behalf, reliance was placed on the decisions rendered by this Court in Vijay Kumar and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 1980 PLJ 248 and Prem Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 1981 PLJ 159. 7. The aforesaid assertion at the hands of the petitioner has been made in paragraph 12 of the writ petition. The response thereto at the hands of the respondents is that of denial for want of knowledge. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the plea raised by the petitioner in paragraph 12 of the writ petition has to be examined minutely. On such examination, it is clear that the specifications of the land under the tenancy of the persons mentioned hereinabove have not been disclosed either in paragraph 12 of the writ petition, or in any other part of the writ petition. In other words, the writ petition lacks material particulars insofar as the aforesaid assertion of the petitioner is concerned. In such circumstances, the response thereto at the hands of the respondents is understandable. In the absence of an express plea, depicting the specific land under tenants, it was not possible for the respondents to controvert the same. Since there is no document placed on the record of this case, depicting any tenancy over the land under the ownership of the petitioner, which could be taken into consideration while determining his permissible area, it is not possible to accept the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The aforesaid assertion also deserves to be rejected on account to the fact that the petitioner had raised no such plea before the Collector, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. In case, there was any genuineness in the aforesaid plea, it would have definitely been raised before the Appellate Authority. I find no justification in allowing the petitioner to raise the same before this Court. 8. The last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had expressed his choice in respect of the reserved area, at the time of disclosure of his ownership to the Assistant Collector, Agrarian, Abohar, vide Annexure P-1, however, the Collector, Abohar while giving effect to the order by which the petitioner was held entitled to retain 7 hectares of first quality land, did not assign to the petitioner land of his choice. Insofar as the instant plea is concerned, it has been disclosed in the written statement that most of the land, which the petitioner was allowed to retain after the competent authority arrived at the conclusion, that he was in possession of 8.6720 hectares of first quality land in excess of his entitlement, was allowed to be retained on the basis of his choice. However, for an insignificantly small area, the wish of the petitioner could not be acceded to. Ordinarily, the choice of the land owner has to be honoured, except for justifiable reasons. No justifiable reasons have been disclosed in the written statement for not acceding to the request of the petitioner. The question that arises for consideration is whether the choice of the petitioner expressed by him in Annexure P-1 should be enforced ? As stated above, ordinarily, the said choice must be enforced. However, insofar as the present controversy is concerned, no reasons indicating hardship or loss to the petitioner have been disclosed. Had the petitioner been subjected to any adverse circumstances, it would have been imperative to enforce his choice. However, on account of the non-disclosure of any such circumstances before this Court, it may not be in the fitness of the matter, at the present juncture after a lapse of about three decades (since the petitioners land was declared surplus), to order reshuffling of the land. No other plea is advanced at the hands of the petitioner. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.