Final surplus-area order survives delayed utilisation and State reorganisation; no fresh permissible area claim arises in successor States.

A final surplus-area order under the land ceiling law remains effective even if the Government has not yet utilised the surplus land for resettlement of tenants, because the statute does not impose a time limit for such utilisation and gives the landowner no right to reclaim the land for delay. State reorganisation also does not permit a fresh claim to the permissible area in each successor State where the pre-reorganisation order had already become final; the reorganisation and adaptation provisions preserved existing rights, liabilities, notifications, and orders. The pre-existing surplus determination therefore continued to bind the landowner.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order declaring land as surplus under the land ceiling law loses effect merely because the surplus land had not been utilised for resettlement of tenants. (ii) Whether, after reorganisation of the State, a landowner whose holdings fell in the two successor States could claim the permissible area separately in each State.

Issue (i): Whether an order declaring land as surplus under the land ceiling law loses effect merely because the surplus land had not been utilised for resettlement of tenants.

Analysis: Under the statutory scheme, once surplus area is declared, the Government acquires the right to utilise that area for resettlement of ejected or to-be-ejected tenants. The Act does not prescribe any time limit for such utilisation and does not confer any right on the landowner to reclaim the land if the Government delays utilisation. The limited exceptions recognised by the statute do not support restoration on the ground of non-utilisation.

Conclusion: The surplus declaration remained effective, and non-utilisation did not entitle the landowner to restoration.

Issue (ii): Whether, after reorganisation of the State, a landowner whose holdings fell in the two successor States could claim the permissible area separately in each State.

Analysis: The reorganisation provision preserved the operation of the pre-existing land law and conserved territorial references to the former State of Punjab until altered by competent authority. The adaptation order also protected prior notifications, orders, rights, liabilities, and things already done. Consequently, orders that had become final before reorganisation were to be given effect to despite the division of the State, and the landowner could not use the reorganisation to claim a fresh ceiling in each successor State.

Conclusion: Separate permissible area in both States was not available, and the pre-reorganisation surplus order continued to bind.

Final Conclusion: The final, pre-reorganisation surplus determination remained operative after State reorganisation, and the appellant could not avoid it on the grounds of non-utilisation or territorial bifurcation.

Ratio Decidendi: A final surplus-area order under the land ceiling law continues to operate after State reorganisation, and accrued governmental rights to utilise surplus land are not defeated by delay or by the division of territorial jurisdiction.

---