JUDGMENT Mr. K.Kannan, J. (Oral) - I. Civil Writ Petition No.5429 of 1987 The petitioners are claiming as purchasers of the land in dispute, where the ownership was traced before several rounds of transfers, to the big landowner Seth Nand Lal. The primary argument is that the property purchased by him was banjar qadim and hence did not come within the definition of “land” under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act of 1953. This argument was rejected not on a point of fact but on an interpretation of law by the Financial Commissioner. It was admitted that the property which was claimed by the petitioners that fell within an extent of 37 kanals and 8 marlas were entered in the jamabandi as banjar qadim but referring a decision of this Court in 1980 PLJ 498, the Financial Commissioner held a conversion of the property as cultivable land subsequently would bring it within the definition of “land” and liable to be vested in State and a reckoning was to be made of such a land also in the hands of a landowner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners refers to me to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gopal Ram and others Versus State of Haryana and others-1999 (1) PLJ 5, that dealt with the effect of the description in revenue records as banjar qadim and the tenability of the State action in including the State property within the holding of the landowner for determination of surplus. The Court held, while making a reference to the effect of subsequent acquisitions spelt out through Sections 19-A and 19-B under the Punjab Security of Land Act, that banjar kadim and banjar jadid brought under cultivation after 15.04.1953 cannot amount to acquisition or accretion to the original holding of the landowner. The property brought under cultivation does not change the status of the landowner and his holding could not be treated as falling within the surplus. 3. The above said decision squarely governs the field and would take the property claimed by the petitioners out of the reckoning of the State surplus pool. The order would require to be set aside on this sole ground, although issues relating to want of notice and the need for exclusion of a property that had been transferred by Nand Lal even before 30.07.1958 was also urged before me. 4. The order would require to be set aside on this sole ground, although issues relating to want of notice and the need for exclusion of a property that had been transferred by Nand Lal even before 30.07.1958 was also urged before me. 4. The reference to notice was dealt with through the impugned order as having been fulfilled by a proclamation and with reference to the transfer before 30.07.1958 also, there was a challenge by the State that there had been no adequate proof of such transfer. These points also, according to the petitioners, ought to be conclusively answered in favour of the petitioner but, on the other hand, these are issues of disputed facts which I would not enter upon, having regard to the view taken that the property cannot be treated as “land” to be taken into reckoning for being treated as surplus. 5. The impugned orders are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. II. CWP No.5430 of 1987 6. The above said writ petition addresses the very same issue relating to the treatment of the property classified as banjar qadim in the hands of a transferee from the original owner or his successor. The reasoning applied to the above decision shall apply with equal force to the facts brought through the above writ petition also. Consequently, the impugned proceedings which are the subject of challenge in the instant writ petition are also quashed and the writ petition is allowed. ----------------