A transferee from a big landowner is entitled to notice and hearing before declaration of surplus area in the hands of the transferor, but the transferee must challenge the initial declaration of surplus area and not a subsequent order passed under Section 24-A of the Act, which is not an order declaring surplus area but an order to separate the surplus area out of the land obtained by the landowner after consolidation.

1. This judgement will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 2308 and 2309 of 1969. First I shall deal with Civil Writ Petition No. 2308 of 1969. The facts as given in the petition briefly are as follows :-

Kheta Singh, respondent No. 4, was a big landowner. He sold land measuring 35 bighas and 18 biswas in favour of Jaimal Singh and Nachhtar Singh for a sum of Rs. 10,000 vide sale-deed dated June 14, 1958. The petitioners filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption on the ground that they were sons of respondent No. 4 and, therefore, had a superior right of pre-emption. The suit was decreed on August 17, 1959 and the petitioners obtained possession of the land in pursuance of the said decree.

2 The Collector, Ferozepur, commenced proceedings for declaration of surplus area against respondent No. 4 and declared the land measuring 19-12 standard acres as surplus vide order dated August 31, 1962. The area which had been sold by respondent No. 4 was declared surplus. It is alleged that before declaring surplus area, the petitioners were not served with any notice regarding the declaration of surplus area proceedings. It is further said that the appeal and revision of respondent No. 4 were dismissed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner vide their orders dated March 8, 1965 and May 14, 1965, respectively. The consolidation proceedings were taken in village Khaneki Dhab, District Ferozepur, where the petitioners had become owners of the land by pre-emption. It is alleged, the Collector (Agrarian) Ferozepur, respondent No. 3, again started proceedings for determination of the surplus area. He, however, did not give any notice of the proceedings to the petitioners. He declared an area to the extent of 18-1¼ standard acres as surplus with respondent No. 4 because in consolidation proceedings, his total holding had been reduced from 49-12 standard acres to 48-1¼ standard acres.

3. The petitioners, it is stated, came to know about the aforesaid order and they filed an appeal against it before the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, respondent No. 2 wherein they contended that they being transferees of the land of respondent No. 4 were entitled to be heard before declaration of surplus are with him, which had not been done. The plea was rejected by the Commissioner as per order dated March 3, 1969. They want up in revision before the Financial Commissioner, respondent No. 1, which was dismissed by him on August 28, 1969. They have come up in writ petition against the aforesaid orders to this Court.

4. It is contended by Mr. Sahni, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the property in dispute was transferred by respondent No. 4 in favour of Jaimal Singh and Nachhttar Singh before July 30, 1958. The petitioners filed a suit for possession by pre-emption which was decreed. The right of pre-emption is a right of substitution and, therefore, the petitioners will be deemed to be transferees of the property with effect from June 14, 1958, the date when the sale-deed was executed by respondent No. 4 in favour of original vendees. He further submits that the sales before July 30, 1958, are protected. He also contends that that being the case, the petitioners were entitled to notice before declaration of the surplus area in the hands of respondent No. 4 but it was not done by the Collector and as soon as they came to know that the land in dispute had been declared as surplus area in their hands, they filed an appeal against the order of the Collector to the Commissioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, the counsel submits, the Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner have taken erroneous view of the matter and decided it against them.

5. Mr. Sachdeva, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 5 to 7, allottees of the surplus area, has vehemently contended that the petitioners did not file any appeal against the order of declaration of surplus area dated August 31, 1962. He argues that they filed an appeal against t