Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. Initially, this writ petition was filed by Gurdial Singh son of Thaman Singh, during pendency, he died and vide order dated 21.11.1995, his sons, namely Labh Singh, Mithu Singh and Major Singh, were brought on record as his legal representatives. 2. This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash orders Annexure P/3 to P/6 and a further a prayer has been made that a declaration be granted to the petitioner that there was no surplus area with him. 3. It is apparent from the records that proceedings for determination of surplus area with the petitioner, were initiated in the year 1959. On the basis of return filed by him, under Section 32-B of Pepsu Agricultural Land & Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short the Pepsu Tenancy Act) area measuring 18 standard acres 2-1/2 units was declared surplus with him. The petitioner remained unsuccessful in his appeal and vide order dated 7.7.1963, his revision was also dismissed, however, directions were given to the Collector, to get fresh option from the land owner, to reserve land for him, in place of old khasra number, which were shown before consolidation had taken place in the village. Upon notice, many objections were raised by the petitioner, however, vide order dated 11.3.1976, his objections were rejected and land measuring 10 standard acres 9 units was declared surplus. Petitioner went in appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.1.1979. He also lost in revision before Financial Commissioner, which was dismissed on 3.9.1982. Hence, this writ petition. 4. It is an admitted fact that when proceedings were continuing, under the provisions of Pepsu Tenancy Act, State of Punjab, promulgated Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (in short the Reforms Act), which came into existence on 2.4.1973. As per provisions of that Act, 24th January, 1971 was fixed as appointed day, to determine surplus area or otherwise with the land owners. It is also an admitted fact that when this writ petition was admitted on 17.11.1982, dispossession of the petitioner was stayed. In their written statement, respondents have stated that the determination made was perfectly justified and further that in consequent to the orders passed, possession was taken on 27.10.1982. It is also an admitted fact that when this writ petition was admitted on 17.11.1982, dispossession of the petitioner was stayed. In their written statement, respondents have stated that the determination made was perfectly justified and further that in consequent to the orders passed, possession was taken on 27.10.1982. this fact was also re-asserted in affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur on 31.10.2005, wherein it has been stated that the possession was taken on 27.10.1982, by making entry in Roznamcha Wakyati by the Patwari and that at present, land is lying vacant and has not been utilized, in view of the order passed by this Court. Factum of taking the possession, as referred to above, was controverted by counsel for the petitioner, by referring to Jamabandi for the year 1984-85, wherein the petitioner and his sons were shown in possession of the property, in dispute. 5. Shri Dogra states that even as per averments made by the respondents, they had taken possession of the property, in dispute, in the year 1982, the same is lying vacant and has not been utilized, as per provisions of Pepsu Tenancy Act. By referring to above-mentioned facts, counsel contends that as in the meantime, Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, came into existence, it was incumbent upon the authorities below to redetermine surplus area with the petitioner, as in view of new Act, he was entitled to reserve separate units for his adult sons and additional land for family members, more than the prescribed number, under that Act. Shri Dogra has further stated that as the petitioner has died during pendency of this writ petition, in view of ratio of Full Bench judgment in Ranjit Ram v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab (1981)83 P.L.R.492 (F.B.), it is necessary for the authorities to re-determine surplus area, in the hands of legal heirs of the petitioner. He prayed that the writ petition be allowed, orders, under challenge, be set aside and respondent No. 3 be directed to decide surplus area case of the petitioner, afresh. 6. Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by counsel for the respondents. He has argued that the determination of area with the petitioner, under the Pepsu Tenancy Act, had become final, as such, no benefit of the provisions of Reforms Act, can be given to the petitioner/his legal heirs. He prayed that the writ petition, having no substance, be dismissed. 7. Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by counsel for the respondents. He has argued that the determination of area with the petitioner, under the Pepsu Tenancy Act, had become final, as such, no benefit of the provisions of Reforms Act, can be given to the petitioner/his legal heirs. He prayed that the writ petition, having no substance, be dismissed. 7. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court feels that in view of facts of this case, writ petition deserves to be allowed. 8. A Division Bench of this Court, in Sudarshan Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., while dealing with a similar situation, by taking note of surplus area declared of a land owner, in the year 1960, under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953, which are in pari materia of the provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy Act and factum of coming into existence of the Reforms Act, observed thus: During the course of arguments, it remained undisputed that if the land, declared surplus, till the year 1973 when the Act of 1972 came into being, may not have been utilized either before the Provisions of Act came into being or till such time Devki died, the authorities constituted under the Act had no option but for to re-assess the surplus area in the hands of legal heirs of Devki. Reference in this connection be made to Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ranjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab 1981 P.L.J. 259, which has since been confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Ujjagar Singh (dead) by LRs. v. The Collector, Bathinda and Anr. 1996 P.L.J. 505. Thus, the judgments of the Full Bench and Hon ble Supreme Court cover the situation when the Act of 1972 came into force and the land was not utilized. The order proposition as settled, as mentioned above, is that when death of a land owner occurs and the land has not been utilized, it has to be reassessed in the hands of legal heirs. It has been so held by the Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Kumar v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1980 P.L.J. 354. 9. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ujjagar Singh (dead) by LRs. It has been so held by the Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Kumar v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1980 P.L.J. 354. 9. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ujjagar Singh (dead) by LRs. v. The Collector, Bhatinda and Anr., while affirming ratio of the Full Bench in Ranjit Rams case (supra), has held that once the land declared as surplus, under the Pepsu Tenancy Act did not vest in the State Government, as possession thereof had not been taken under the provisions of that Act, there has to be a fresh determination with respect of the land of a land owner under the provisions of the Reforms Act. 10. Record in the present case shows that even as on today, land has not been utilized. Assertion of counsel for the respondents that the possession was taken on 27.10.1982, does not seem to be correct. It is apparent from the entry made in Roznamcha Waqyati (available at page 32 of the writ petition) that on the date, referred to above, crop was standing in the land, in dispute and only maalkana possession was delivered, as against this, as per Jamabandi for the year 1984-85, petitioner/his sons, were shown in possession and nature of the land has been shown as Barani. After going through the revenue documents and also order passed by this Court on 17.11.1982, vide which, dispossession was stayed, this Court feels that the State has not taken possession of the land, in dispute, as alleged. 11. So keeping in view facts of this case and the ratio of the judgments, referred to above, this writ petition is allowed, orders, under challenge, are set aside. Parties are directed to appear before respondent No. 3 on 10.4.2006, who is directed to decide surplus area case of the petitioner/his legal heirs afresh, keeping in view provisions of Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. It shall highly be appreciated, if the officer concerned disposes of the matter in a very expeditious manner. No order as to costs.