JUDGMENT

N.P. Singh, J.

1. These appeals have been filed against the orders dated 18.1.1981, passed by the High Court, dismissing the writ petitions filed on behalf of Jodha Ram, Om Parkash, Lekh Ram and others, for quashing the order of the Collector and the Financial Commissioner, hold that the lands in question had been rightly declared Surplus Area under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "Land Tenures Act").

2. It appears to be an admitted position that Om Parkash, appellant in one of the appeals, had entered into partnership agreement with Loti Ram and Rup Ram (predecessor in interest of Respondents Nos. 5 to 10), to run an agricultural farm on the lands of aforesaid Om Parkash. In the year 1949, Om Parkash filed a case for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. Loti Ram and Rup Ram took a plea that as per the terms of the partnership, on the dissolution of the partnership, they were entitled to get 150 bighas of land as tenants.

3. The Land Tenures Act came into force on 15.4.1953. The appellant Jodha Ram purchased the lands in dispute from Om Parkash through a sale deed dated 21.11.1953. The Collector in exercise of the powers conferred on him by the Land Tenures Act, declared the lands in dispute as surplus area, by an order dated 28.6.1960.

4. In the civil dispute, which was pending between Om Parkash and Loti Ram, the District Judge by an order dated 18.6.1970, held that Loti Ram and Rup Ram were entitled to remain in possession of the lands in question, as tenants. Jodha Ram, the appellant, who had acquired the right, title and interest of Om Parkash by aforesaid sale deed dated 21.11.1953, did not care to get himself impleaded as a party to that proceeding.

5. The appellant, Jodha Ram, however, filed a petition under Section 9(1)(i) of the Land Tenures Act on 16.8.1973, for eviction of Loti Ram and Rup Ram, before the Assistant Collector, on the ground that he himself was a small land holder and the aforesaid tenants held large areas of land and as such he was entitled to the possession of the lands in question under Section 9(1)(i) of the Land Tenures Act. The Assistant Collector came to the conclusion that as Loti Ram and Rup Ram, the tenants, held 269 canals and 5 marlas of land in addition to the lands in dispute and Jodha Ram was a small land owner, he was entitled to recover possession of the lands in dispute. On that finding, he directed eviction of the tenants. The Collector, however, allowed the appeals of the tenants, on the ground that the lands which were the subject matter of controversy, had been declared as surplus area of Om Parkash and Jodha Ram, the appellant, was not entitled to evict the tenants and to take possession thereof. That finding was affirmed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, as well as the Financial Commissioner. Ultimately, a writ petition was filed on behalf of the appellant, Jodha Ram, which was dismissed by the High Court. The High Court was of the view that the land having been declared as surplus area under the Land Tenures Act, and the validity of the order, having not been questioned by Om Parkash or the writ petitioner at any stage earlier, it was not open to the writ petitioner to question the same in a proceeding initiated by him under Section 9(1)(i) of the Land Teures Act, for eviction of the tenants, Loti Ram and Rup Ram.

6. Section 2(5a) of the Land Tenures Act defines "Surplus Area":-

"Section 2(5a). - "Surplus Area" means the area other than the reserved area, and, where, no area has been reserved, the area in excess of the permissible area selected under Section 5-B or the area which is deemed to be surplus area under Sub-section (1) of Section 5-C and includes the area in excess of the permissible area selected under Section 19-B; but it will not include tenants permissible area:

Provided that it will include the reserved area, or part thereof, where such area or part has not been brought under