M.M.Kumar, J.

1. The State of Haryana is in appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against judgment dated 3.11.2004, passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 1827 of 1986. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by setting aside order dated 12.9.1984 passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division (P-3) and order dated 5.3.1986, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana (P-4). As a consequence of quashing of the aforesaid orders, learned Single Judge has upheld the orders dated 23.11.1979 (P-1) and 17.11.1981 (P-2) passed by the Prescribed Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Jind and the Collector, Jind respectively.

2. Brief facts of the case are that vide order dated 19.6.1963, the Special Collector (Agrarian) Punjab, declared the area measuring 311 Kanals 19 Marlas as surplus in the hands of Rulia-predecessor in interest of the present respondents (who are sons and grand sons of the land owner). It is pertinent to mention that one Dharam Singh, had filed separate petition under Section 12 of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for brevity, `the Ceiling Act) for exemption of the said land from surplus pool as they have claimed to have purchased/pre-empted the land before 30.7.1958 and have also claimed to be in possession ever since. The Prescribed Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Jind, examined the record and granted exemption to the petitioner-respondents vide order dated 23.11.1979. On an appeal filed by the allottees, the order of the Prescribed Authority was upheld by the Collector on 17.11.1981 (P-2) on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation. They further filed a revision petition under Section 18(4) of the Ceiling Act and their contention was accepted and the order of the Collector was set aside by observing as under :-

"6. I have heard the arguments of both the parties and I have also perused the record. While deciding the surplus case of Rulia Land-owner, the Special Collector vide his order dated 19.6.63 rejected the objection raised by him to the effect that he has sold some land to Charan Singh etc. These orders were challenged in the High Court vide writ petition which was dismissed on 30.8.1979 because the sale of the disputed land was not considered to the proper and the High Court dismissed the writ petition regarding be (the?) same. Therefore, the Prescribed Authority ought to have not given the benefit of selling this land and getting the decree by way of preemption suit to Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. If the respondent No. 2 to 4 were aggrieved by the order of the Special Collector dated 19.6.63, then they should have challenged that order at proper time and at proper level. But they did not do so. The land in dispute was allotted to the tenants which includes the appellant on 26.6.68, and the possession of the same was given to them, as is apparent from the Rapat Roznamcha Waqyati dated 26.6.68. Therefore this land the(?) has vested in the State after coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling on land Holding Act. The appellants should have been made the parties before the Prescribed Authority because Respondent No. 2 to 4 must have got the knowledge of the delivery of possession to the appellants. The Prescribed Authority while announcing the order has not heard the State while it was essential as the State was made a party. On the basis of the above mentioned facts, the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 23.11.1979 is not legally correct. The appeal preferred against this order ought to have been decided keeping in view all the above mentioned facts which have not been done. Therefore, I am unable to accept the order of the Collector dated 17.11.81 as correct."

3. The petitioner-respondents challenged the order of the Commissioner, Hisar Division before the Financial Commissioner, who upheld the same and declared that the petitioners were not entitled to exclude any area from the surplus pool.

4. The short issue raised in th