JUDGMENT

SARKARIA, J.:— This appeal by certificate is directed against an order dated 2-9-1968, of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing in limine a writ petition filed by the appellant, to impugn certain orders of the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial commissioner passed in proceedings under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter called the Act).

2. The facts are as follows:

3. The appellant owns land in village Desu Malkana, Tehsil Sirsa, District Hissar in the State of Haryana.

4. In proceedings under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Collector, Surplus Area, Sirsa, on February 21, 1961, held that since the total holding of the appellant did not exceed 30 standard acres, there was no surplus area with him.

5. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the Collector that the appellant was, in fact, holding much more than the coiling of 60 ordinary acres fixed under Section 2(2) of the Act. He, therefore, issued notice to the appellant, why the order be not reviewed. According to the recital in the Collectors order, this notice was served on him. The appellant did not appear and on June 5, 1962, the Collector proceeding ex parte against the appellant, reviewed his earlier order and declared 30.80 ordinary acres equivalent to 11.37 standard acres as surplus area with the appellant.

6. About 4 or 5 years thereafter, the appellant filed an application before the Collector, for review of his order dated June 5, 1962. The Collector rejected the same by a summary order dated January 27, 1967.

7. Against that order, the appellant went in revision before the Commissioner, who rejected the same by an order dated November 15, 1967.

8. The appellants further revision before the Financial Commissioner met the same fate on April 22, 1968.

9. On August 18, 1968, the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, praying for quashing the aforesaid orders dated June 5, 1962/January 1, 1967, November 15, 1967 and April 22, 1968 of the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, respectively. The challenge was based on these grounds.

(i) The order dated, June 5, 1962 was illegal and against the principles of natural justice, as the same was passed ex parte without giving any opportunity to the writ petitioner to the heard in the matter.

(ii) An area of more than 20 bighas of Banjar Qadim and Ghair Mumkin quality, which did not fall within the definition of "land" in the Act, was illegally taken into account in determining the surplus area.

(iii) There are old tenants in continuous cultivating possession over a part of the total holding of the petitioner since before the coming into force of the Act, and the area under such tenants had to be excluded from the purview of surplus proceedings.

(iv) In any case, under the Act, the petitioner is entitled to a minimum permissible area of 30 standard acres.

10. No copy of the petition, which is said to have been filed by the appellant before the Collector requesting for review of his order dated June 5, 1962, was filed before the High Court. An uncertified copy dated November 4, 1965 has now been placed before us at the time of arguments by the learned counsel for the appellant.

11. The learned counsel for the respondent-State has expressed doubts about the authenticity of the copy. It is pointed out that this copy of the petition is dated November 4, 1965, while the Commissioners order states that the Review Petition was filed before the Collector by the appellant in 1967. However, a copy of the Collectors order dated June 5, 1962 is on the file. It is recited therein by the Collector that Kishan Singh was duly served: he failed to attend: and therefore ex parte proceedings were taken against him. There is no region to doubt the correctness of this recital.

12. The definition in S. 2 (2) of the Act states that "permissible area" in relation to a land-owner or a tenant, means thirty standar