JUDGMENT

RAMASWAMI, J.

( 1 ) ONE Bishan Das who is the father of respondents 2 to 5 and another by name Mubari Ram whose legal representatives are respondents 6 and 7, owned considerable extent of land in Pakistan. He died on 11/04/1948 after he migrated to India. After his death the Rehabilitation Department allotted 124 standard acres and 4 1/4 units of evacuee land on 26/08/1949. The five sons of Bishan Das were treated as entitled to this land as heirs and successors of the displaced person and accordingly mutation was allowed by the rehabilitation authorities on 17/02/1953 in favour of the five sons showing each of them entitled to 24 standard acres and 13 units of land. Permanent rights in regard to this allotted land were also conferred by the authorities under the provisions of the said Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act in the names of the sons of Bishan Das on 2/01/1956. These lands were in the occupation of different tenants against whom the five brothers initiated ejectment proceedings by filing applications under S. 9 (1) (i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act) for ejectment on the ground that each of them is a "small landowner" as defined in S. 2 (2) of the Act and that they required the land for self-cultivation. The Assistant Collector, Hissar rejected the application. The owners appeals were dismissed by the Collector on 4/01/1965. Their revision also was rejected by the Commissioner of Ambala Division on 26/10/1965. Their further revision to the Financial Commissioner also met with the same fate on 17/05/1966. Thereafter the landowners moved the High court by a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution on the ground that the land had been allotted to them in lieu of the land owned by their father Bishan Das in Pakistan and consequently the permissible area of each of them is to be computed under the proviso to S. 2 (3) of the Act and so computed the holding of each of the five were well below the permissible limit of 30 standardacres prescribed thereunder. The writ petition was dismissed but the letters patent appeals filed against the same came up for consideration before a full bench of the High court of Punjab and Haryana. The High court held that in view of the explanation to the proviso the heirs and successors of the displaced persons to whom land were allotted could not claim the benefit of the proviso and that the permissible area under the substantive part of S. 2 (3) is 60 ordinary acres. Against this decision the respondent landowners preferred appeals to this court. By a judgment dated December 15, 1978 in Munshi Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana this court confirmed the view of the full bench. However, this court accepted an argument on behalf of the landowners that in computing the permissible area of each of the landowners the uncultivated area of banjar jadid, banjar kadim and gair mumkin lands as on 15/04/1953 could not be included. As the authorities under the Act had illegally and wrongfully included these types of uncultivated lands orders of the various authorities were set aside and the case was remanded to the Collector concerned of Hissar District with a direction that he should ascertain the extent of the banjar jadid, banjar kadim and gair mumkin of the landowners allottees at the relevant date, namely, 15/04/1953 and recompute their permissible area after excluding such land. It is now ascertained that so computed each of the landowners were holding at the relevant date less than 60 acres. When these proceedings were pending simultaneously applications filed by the tenants under S. 18 of the Act for; purchase of the surplus area were also being considered by the various; authorities. When that matter came up before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, in surplus area cases after noting the judgment of the full bench of the High court in the landowners case, the Financial Commissioner set aside the o