JUDGMENT Mr. Ajai Lamba, J. (Oral):- Vijay Kumar, Kewal Krishan and Vimal Rai sons of Puran Chand son of Hari Ram have approached this Court in challenge to orders passed by the authorities under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, and the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. 2. The details of the case are not required to be given, in view of the concession given on behalf of respondents No.7 to 9. Suffice it to say that vide order dated 7.1.2000 (Annexure P-1), Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab, while dealing with ROR No.401 of 1996 (Puran Chand son of Hari Ram v. State and Kulwant Rai and others) and ROR No.663 of 1998 (Kulwant Rai and others v. Puran Chand son of Hari Singh), remanded the cases to the Collector Agrarian, in following terms:- “9. I have assessed the evidence on the file and the arguments put forth by the Counsel for the parties. Limited question involved in this case is as to how the calculation of land is to be made. The Collector has made the calculation and arrived at a particular conclusion and the Commissioner in appeal has made calculations differently and has concluded that in this case there is no surplus land in this case as held by the Collector. I feel that since it is a pure question of calculation based on record and different qualities of land are involved, it would be in the interest of justice and fair play for both the parties that exact calculations are made as per the revenue record pertaining to this land. The case, is therefore, remanded to the concerned Collector Agrarian for fresh calculation based on record, after looking into different qualities of land involved in this case who shall decide the matter within two months of the receipt of this order.” 3. Subsequently, on remand, the petitioners were required to be heard. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the petitioners have not been heard and, therefore, manifest injustice has been caused to the rights of the petitioners. It has been stated that Puran Chand, father of the petitioners, died on 26.11.1999. 4. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the petitioners have not been heard and, therefore, manifest injustice has been caused to the rights of the petitioners. It has been stated that Puran Chand, father of the petitioners, died on 26.11.1999. 4. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. In order dated 11.8.2006 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, while dealing with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, which has been noticed above, it has been mentioned that “perusal of the Collector’s file reveals that Vakalatnama of Sh. Uttam Sandhu is there on the file at page 467/68". The file has been perused. It transpires that Shri Uttam Sandhu was the counsel for respondents No.7 to 9 and not the petitioners. 6. In such circumstances, the petitioners, indeed, were not represented at the time of adjudication and, therefore, could not present their case. 7. Learned counsel for respondents No.7 to 9 has very fairly conceded that in view of the record, let the case be heard by the authorities, after the order of remand (Annexure P-1). 8. This petition is, accordingly, allowed. It is directed that Collector Agrarian, Gurdaspur, would consider the issue and pass an order in terms of order (Annexure P-1), portion whereof has been extracted above. 9. Collector Agrarian, Gurdaspur, is required to take up the file on day to day basis so far as possible and conclude the proceedings within five months of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. The petitioners and respondents No.7 to 9 shall present themselves before Collector Agrarian, Gurdaspur, on 4.4.2011. 11. In the meantime, the petitioners would continue to pay the rent. ---------0.B.S.0------------