JUDGMENT K.S. Garewal, J.:-This petition has been filed by Joginder Singh to challenge the order of remand passed by Financial Commissioner, dated April 17, 2007. 2. Originally 39 Kanals 16 Marlas was allotted to Gulzar Singh on March 30, 1983 but when he did not deposit the consideration under the provisions of Punjab Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1973 the allotment was cancelled. Subsequently same land was reallotted to Joginder Singh on May 12, 1983. 3. The allotment in favour of Joginder Singh was recommended for review because Gulzar Singh had not been heard before the allotment in his favour was cancelled. Both orders of allotment, the one in favour of Gulzar Singh dated March 30, 1983 and the one in favour of Joginder Singh dated May 12, 1983 were reviewed. The Collector during the review upheld the cancellation of Gulzar Singh. 4. The Collector’s orders were challenged before the Commissioner and the proceedings were remanded back to the Collector to pass a self-speaking order holding eligibility of the subsequent allottee. It is against the said order of the Commissioner dated March 9,2006, that Gulzar Singh’s sons filed revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. 5. The Financial Commissioner came to the following conclusion:- “I am of the view that, it is on account of such non-application of mind the proceedings have become vitiated and go against the principle of natural justice, equity and fair play. Before initiating any adverse action against the affected party, it was essential to issue notice and to hear notice so as to grant opportunity to defend. No such opportunity of personal hearing was ever accorded to Gulzar Singh. It has been squarely established by the Commissioner, Patiala in his review order that Gulzar Singh had not been heard before cancelling his allotment. Moreover, Section 24 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 lays down that any amount payable under this Act has to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Therefore, instead of cancelling this allotment, the proceedings for recovery of amount due should have been initiated against Gulzar Singh or his legal heirs to recover the same as arrears of land revenue. If such proceedings were initiated, then Shri Gulzar Singh or his legal heirs might have got the notice and opportunity of hearing and defend the allotment before any adverse order was passed against them.” 6. If such proceedings were initiated, then Shri Gulzar Singh or his legal heirs might have got the notice and opportunity of hearing and defend the allotment before any adverse order was passed against them.” 6. On the basis of the above position Financial Commissioner has remanded the case back to Collector Agrarian, Ludhiana to complete necessary proceedings of allotment within a period of three months. 7. We have gone through the original order of cancellation passed by the Collector dated March 30, 1983. This order was passed on the basis of the application of Ajit Singh, the big landowner whose 3.55 Hectares of land had been declared surplus. It was due to this order that land was allotted to Gulzar Singh (2 Hectare) and to Gurdev Singh (1.35 Hectares). 8. The allotment was cancelled because the allottee had not deposited the installments towards compensation of land. To verify this fact, a report was sought from the Tehsildar and it was found that Gulzar Singh and Gurdev Singh had not deposited any amount of compensation. Therefore, allotment was cancelled. It is quite obvious that Gulzar Singh had not been heard before the allotment was cancelled. This was a clear violation of the basic principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Financial Commissioner was correct in upholding the allotment in favour of Gulzar Singh and setting aside the Collector’s order dated March 30, 1983. Furthermore, the heirs of Gulzar Singh had also been allowed to deposit the allotment price of the land allotted to their father. We find no merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed --------------------