JUDGMENT Mr. Deepak Sibal, J.: - The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner – Inder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the land owner) owned land in Village Lang, District Patiala. As per order of the Collector (Agrarian), Fatehgarh Sahib, dated 23.12.1969, 1.52 S.A. of his land was declared as surplus. On an appeal filed by him, the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, vide his order dated 04.06.1970, remanded the case back to the Collector for fresh decision. On fresh decision, it was found that the land owner owned 35.38 S.A. of land and after considering the objections filed by him, 1.56 S.A. of land was found to be surplus. 2. In the meanwhile, the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 1972 Act) was promulgated and under the provisions of this Act, the land owner filed his declaration before the Collector, Patiala Sub Division, Patiala. After considering the report of the Patwari and the proof furnished by the land owner, the Collector, Patiala Sub Division, Patiala, reassessed the issue regarding surplus land of the land owner and through his order dated 29.12.1975, held that the land owner had no area excess of his permissible area. Though the order dated 29.12.1975 was subsequent to the earlier order dated 17.09.1975 and being by the same authority i.e. the Collector, Patiala Sub Division, Patiala, it would have normally been considered to be in supersession of the earlier order and should have laid the entire matter to rest, but for the reasons best known to the land owner, he filed an appeal against the earlier order of the Collector dated 17.09.1975. The appeal was considered and rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, vide his order dated 10.01.1980. On behalf of the land owner, the petitioner (his son) moved an application to the authorities dated 14.10.1994 bringing to their notice the above noted facts and requested them to re-consider the entire matter in view of the subsequent order dated 29.12.1975 through which it had specifically been held that there was no surplus land. He further brought to the notice of the authorities that through allotment dated 18.01.1983, the so called surplus land, as declared vide the earlier order of the Collector dated 17.09.1975, had been allotted to one Asa Singh (respondent no. He further brought to the notice of the authorities that through allotment dated 18.01.1983, the so called surplus land, as declared vide the earlier order of the Collector dated 17.09.1975, had been allotted to one Asa Singh (respondent no. 3), but since the petitioner was in possession of the land in question and in the light of the subsequent order of the Collector dated 29.12.1975, it was requested that the entire matter be re-considered. When the request made by the petitioner was not responded to, he got issued the legal notice to the official respondents, which was also ignored, leading to the filing of the present writ. 3. Vide order dated 10.05.1995, a Division Bench of this Court had issued notice of motion to the respondents and further directed that status quo regarding possession be maintained in the matter. Thereafter, Shri T. R. Arora, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent no. 3, but as he did not file any written statement, on 11.10.1996, the writ petition was admitted. While admitting the writ petition, it was further directed that interim directions would continue during the pendency of the matter before this Court. Today, the matter has come up before me after about 19 years of its filing. In the meanwhile, Puran Singh is stated to have died and resultantly, an application was moved to bring on record his legal heirs. This application was allowed by me on 05.11.2014. In spite of the passage of 19 years, neither the State nor the private respondents have bothered to file the written statement. Respondent no. 3 also remains unrepresented. 4. In view of the above, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner go un-rebutted. Therefore, I am left with no other alternative but to accept the un-rebutted averments made by the petitioner and base my decision thereon. 5. It is true that vide order dated 17.09.1975, the Collector (Agrarian), Patiala Sub Division, Patiala had declared 1.56 S.A., out of total land held by the land owner, to be surplus, but after coming into force the 1972 Act, the land owner had made a declaration under Section 5 (1) of the 1972 Act, wherein he had claimed benefits as provided therein. The entire matter was re-considered by the Collector and vide his order dated 29.12.1975, he came to a categoric decision that after considering the provisions of 1972 Act, no portion of the land owned by the land owner was in excess of his permissible area. This order, re-determining the entire matter, after coming into force the 1972 Act, was in accordance with the Full Bench decisions of this Court in the cases of Ranjit Ram versus The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and others reported as 1981 P. L. J. 259 and Sardara Singh and others versus The Financial Commissioner and others reported as [2008(2) Law Herald 961 (P&H) (FB)] : 2008 (3) P. L. R. 297. Once the Collector, through his order dated 29.12.1975, after applying the provisions of the 1972 Act, had returned a categoric finding that no area of the land owner was in excess of his permissible area, then there was no reason in law or on facts to treat 1.56 S.A. of the land of the land owner as surplus land and allot the same to respondent no. 3. In the orders impugned by the petitioner, the authorities have wrongly ignored the order dated 29.12.1975 passed by the Collector, Patiala Sub Division, Patiala and on this ground alone, both these orders are liable to be quashed. 6. As there was no surplus land, consequently, no allotment could have been made in favour of respondent no. 3. Record reveals that such allotment was made on 18.01.1983. As much prior thereto, the Collector, through his order dated 29.12.1975, had held that there was no surplus land with the land owner, there was no question of any allotment in favour of respondent no. 3. 7. In view of the above, the present writ is allowed. The impugned orders dated 17.09.1975 (Annexure P-1) and 10.01.1980 (Annexure P-3) are quashed. Consequently, the allotment of land in favour of respondent no. 3 is also set aside. No costs. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————