Judgment Ranjit Singh, J. 1. Petitioner, Sukhdev Kaur alongwith her two sons, Sohan Singh and Harpal Singh, has filed this writ petition to challenge the order dated 6.12.1984 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, vide which he accepted the application filed by the State against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ferozepur. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is wife of respondent No. 4, Balbir Singh whereas petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are their sons. Due to strained relations between husband and wife, petitioner No. 1 filed an application under Section 488 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from her husband, respondent No. 4. It was alleged that respondent No. 4 was maltreating petitioner No. 1 and had later turned her out from house with two minor children i.e. petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. The application seeking maintenance filed by petitioner No. 1 was ultimately allowed on 7.4.1958 by Magistrate Ist Class, Mukatsar. Total maintenance of Rs. 120/- per month (Rs. 60/- for petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 60/- for petitioner Nos. 2 and 3) was allowed. Husband-respondent No. 4 filed a revision against this order before Sessions Judge, which was dismissed on 11.7.1958. In compliance with the order of maintenance, respondent No. 4 transferred a piece of land measuring 89 kanals 12 marlas by way of gift in favour of the petitioners. The date of this gift deed is not disclosed in the petition. 3. It is noticed that the proceedings for determination of surplus area with respondent No. 4, who was a big land owner, were in progress. For the first time, the surplus area case of respondent No. 4 was decided on 30.11.1960 by the Collector, Mukatsar. Respondent No. 4 filed an appeal and revision and ultimately the case was finally decided on 6.4.1972. Through this order, annexed with the petition as Annexure P-3, 38 standard acres and 9 units were declared surplus at the hands of respondent No. 4. Petitioner No. 1 was neither served with any notice nor she was aware of the surplus proceedings, which were in progress against respondent No. 4. When she learnt about it in the year 1974, she filed an application on 15.11.1974 before the Collector, Mukatsar, with a prayer that the land gifted to her by respondent No. 4 be exempted from surplus area so declared and determined. When she learnt about it in the year 1974, she filed an application on 15.11.1974 before the Collector, Mukatsar, with a prayer that the land gifted to her by respondent No. 4 be exempted from surplus area so declared and determined. The Collector accepted this prayer through his order dated 4.12.1974 and exempted the area gifted to the petitioners from utilisation. Subsequently, in view of the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, respondent No. 4 again moved for re- determining the surplus area with him. The Collector vide order dated 12.11.1976 ultimately found that no area was available for utilisation from the holding of respondent No. 4. Copy of this order has been placed on record as Annexure P-5. 4. It appears that Collector, Agrarian, subsequently sought permission for revision/review of the order dated 4.12.1974 on the ground that the said order, exempting land gifted to the petitioners from utilisation was passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the State. The Commissioner, however, rejected this prayer of the respondent-State through his order dated 10.12.1975. State filed an appeal under Section 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. The same, however, was dismissed on 16.6.1982 (Annexure P-7). State still did not feel satisfied and filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner, however, after examining the record accepted the revision and quashed the order passed by the Collector dated 4.12.1974 and that of the Commissioner dated 15.6.1982. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition to impugn the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. 5. While issuing notice of motion in this case, dispossession of the petitioners was stayed. The writ petition was finally admitted on 29.7.1985. 6. Reply on behalf of the State has been filed. It is conceded that while dealing with the case of surplus area of Balbir Singh, the petitioners were not put to notice. Otherwise, the State has tried to justify the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. It is stated that the gift made in favour of the petitioners was required to be ignored. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. It appears that the Financial Commissioner was not apprised of the entire facts at the time when he passed the impugned order dated 6.12.1984. It is stated that the gift made in favour of the petitioners was required to be ignored. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. It appears that the Financial Commissioner was not apprised of the entire facts at the time when he passed the impugned order dated 6.12.1984. The Financial Commissioner primarily has interfered with the order passed by the Collector on the ground that counsel for the petitioners could not show any provision whereby the Collector could have passed an order exempting the area gifted to the petitioners from utilisation. This is the sole ground on which he interfered and set-aside the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner etc. He has still observed that the respondents would not be precluded from seeking any other remedy available to them under law for having the surplus area re-determined. 9. There are more than one reason for which the order passed by the Financial Commissioner can not be sustained. The facts, as noticed above, would clearly show that though 38 standard acres of land were finally declared surplus on 6.4.1974 but apparently this surplus land was not utilised. Subsequently, however, the Punjab Land Reforms Act was enacted and on an application moved by respondent No. 4, the Collector came to the conclusion that no area was surplus with respondent No. 4. The land, which was gifted to the petitioners, could get effected only if this came to be included in the land, which was declared surplus. The gift of the land was much prior to the date when the land at the hands of respondent No. 4 was declared surplus. It was incumbent upon respondent No. 4 to bring it to the notice of the authorities that 89 kanals 12 marlas land had been gifted by him in lieu of the maintenance that was awarded by the Court. Since the rights of the petitioners were put to prejudice without any notice having been served on them, any area which in fact was owned by them by way of a gift being bonafide, could not have been included in the area declared surplus without serving notice to the petitioners. 10. Even these facts would also pale into insignificance in view of the subsequent development. The land, which was declared surplus with respondent No. 4, ultimately did not remain in the surplus pool in view of order, Annexure P-5. 10. Even these facts would also pale into insignificance in view of the subsequent development. The land, which was declared surplus with respondent No. 4, ultimately did not remain in the surplus pool in view of order, Annexure P-5. Since the entire land owned by respondent No. 4 is now in his possession and ownership, he can not, therefore, wish away the gift of the land measuring 89 kanals 12 marlas, which he has executed in favour of the petitioners. If this fact had been brought to the notice of the Financial Commissioner, perhaps he may not have interfered with the orders passed by the Collector and Commissioner. The State has not been able to point out anything against this factual position as it would emerge from the record. Since now there is no land surplus, which is to be utilised, the land which was gifted to the petitioners will not come under any dispute. There is no requirement for passing the order, exempting this land from utilisation as now no land is left surplus with respondent No. 4. The writ petition is allowed. The land, which was gifted to the petitioners, would continue remain in their ownership. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner is rendered non-est in view of the position as noticed and as such, will not have any effect on the rights of the petitioners being owners of this land on the basis of gift in their favour. There shall be no order as to costs.