Judgment

KULDIP SINGH, J.:- Kishan Dutt, father of respondents 5 to 7 in the appeal herein was a big land-owner under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (the Act). Mala Singh, the appellant was a tenant since 1951-52 in a part of land owned by Kishan Dutt. Mala Singh was shown in the revenue records as a tenant in cultivating possession of the land. Since Kishan Dutt was a big land-owner, proceedings under the Act were initiated and the Collector, Sirsa by its order dated January 31, 1962, declared certain area owned by Kishan Dutt including the land in Mala Singhs possession, as surplus under the Act. Kishan Dutt was permitted to retain the permissible area reserved by him under the Act. Mala Singh filed an application before the Revenue Officer praying that the land in his possession be reserved as "tenants permissible area" and be taken out of the surplus pool. The application was allowed by the Revenue Officer vide his order dated December 24, 1963. The net result was that Kishan Dutt was permitted to retain his permissible area under the Act and the land in possession of Mala Singh was declared as tenants permissible area.

2. Section 18 of the Act provided that a tenant who was in continuous occupation of the land for a minimum period of six years was entitled to purchase the same provided the said land was not included in the reserve area of the land-owner. Mala Singh filed an application on June 24, 1972, under Section 18 of the Act for the purchase of the land under his possession as a tenant. It would be relevant to mention that Kishan Dutt died on September 4, 1971, leaving his son Madan Mohan and two daughters. Madan Mohan and his sisters filed an application dated November 23, 1971, for ejectment of Mala Singh from the land in dispute, on the ground that after the death of their father, the three successors had become small land-owners and, as such, were entitled to the land, possessed by Mala Singh as tenant.

3. Both the applications came for consideration before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sirsa, who by his order dated June 18, 1977 rejected the application of Madan Mohan and allowed the application of Mala Singh for the purchase of the land. Madan Mohan along with his sisters filed appeal before the Collector, Sirsa against the order of the Assistant Collector. The Collector dismissed the appeal on the following reasoning:-

"In this case, the land in dispute is the tenants permissible area and this area is equal to the area as utilised. This area cannot be reverted back to the appellants. The rulings cited by the appellants are only applicable when the surplus land was not utilised. Under the circumstances I feel that the order passed by the Assistant Collector allowing the purchase application is perfectly legal and after the purchase, application for ejectment of the tenant has no meaning. Hence, the appeals filed by the appellants are hereby dismissed. "

4. Madan Mohan and his sisters filed two revision applications before the Commissioner Hissar Division. The Commissioner allowed the revision petitions and recommended to the Financial Commissioner to dismiss the application of the tenant for the purchase of the land and to have the question whether the land owners were small landowners redetermine. The Financial Commissioner by his order dated November 11, 1982, accepted the recommendations of the Commissioner and dismissed the application of Mala Singh for the purchase of the land. The. Financial Commissioner accepted the revision petitions on the following reasoning :-

"It is obvious that an application for the purchase of the land was made during the lifetime of the original land-owner. The succession opened as soon as the death of the original land-owner took place and the question whether the heirs were small landowners assumed importance. Furthermore, a plain reading of Section 12(3) of the new Act show that the tenants permissible area under the old Act vested in the Stat