The surplus area declared under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, which had not vested in the State Government, shall be deemed to have vested in the State Government with effect from the appointed day, i.e., 24.1.1971, before the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, was brought into force on 23.12.1972.

V.K.Bali, J.

1.

V. K. Bali, J.

2.

3. 1. Surjit Singh and nine Ors. through this petition filed by them under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution seek issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash orders passed by respondent No.2, Financial Commissioner, Annexure P-5, vide which revision preferred by respondent-tenants against the order of the Commissioner dated 30th August, 1985, was accepted.

4. 2. The brief facts of the case reveal that by order dated 10th June, 1961, Collector Surplus Area declared 96.89 ordinary acres of land as permissible area in the hands of big landowner, namely, Balram. This order was passed under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1953 ). This order was reviewed on 21st May, 1962 and landowner was held entitled to 60 ordinary acres of land. The matter however, once again came to the Collector, Surplus Area on 21st March, 1964, when the original landowner was examined who gave the list of Khasra numbers sought to to be reserved as surplus area as also list of Khasra numbers which had increased on account of consolidation operations. In view of fresh Goshwara prepared by Khanckand, Kanungo and verified by Vishnu Datt, Naib Tehsildar, the position of the laud holding of the said landowner was depicted as follows:-

5. O. A. St. A.

6. 1. (a) Area of I5.4.53 381.66 117.81 (b) Area received through inheritance 126.63 39.21 2. Area increased on account of consolidation operation (which is to be given to the landowner) 28.41 8.88

7. 3. Area left with Muni Devi through the Order of the Court.19.55 6.11

8. 4. Area acquired by the State Govt.2.28 0.56

9. 5. Area under old tenants 183.34 56.36

10. 6. Permissible area to remain with the landowner.60.00 18.67

11. 7. Area to be declared surplus after making necessary additions and deductions.271.33 83.20 3. In view of the land position as reflected above the Collector, Surplus Area, vide order dated 20th June, 1964, held landowner entitled to the permissible area of 60 Ordinary Acres and declared 27133 Ordinary Acres as surplus. List of the khasra number that came to be surplus under the Act was separated and appended to the aforesaid order as Appendix a. Some of the tenants who were occupying the land of Balram, the original landowner, which had come into surplus pool filed an appeal before the Commissioner in the year 1980. This appeal was against the order dated 21.5.1962 of the Collector Surplus Area and the main ground of the tenants therein was that they being old tenants occupying the land that was declared surplus in the hands of the big landowner were entitled to retain the said land which was to be tenants permissible area. The appeal of the respondent-tenants was accepted resulting into remand of the ease which came to be ultimately decided by Collector vide order dated 31st December, 1982. The surplus land of the landowner was reduced from 271.33 acres to 126.78 acres after counting for the old tenants permissible area. This order was obviously not to the liking of the petitioner who carried an appeal before the Commissioner mainly pleading there that on account of the death of original landowner Balram in 1974, the land declared surplus in his hands had not been utilised, all the heirs of the original landowner would be entitled to separate permissible area under the provision of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act of 1972 which had obviously come into existence after the death of the landowner. The Commissioner accepted this contention of the petitioners and remanded the case to the Collector for redetermining the surplus area in the hands of the legal heirs of Balram, the original landowner. Being aggrieved, respondest-tenants herein filed revision before the Financial Commissioner, who vide orders dated 13.1988 not only set-aside the order of Commissioner dated 30.8.1985 but also set-aside the one passed in favour of the tenants by the Collector dated 31.12.1982.