1. This Letters Patent appeal under Clause 10 challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17th March, 1967, by which a writ petition filed by the appellants under Art. 226 of the Constitution, was dismissed.

2. The admitted facts are that Harchand Singh, father of the appellants, was at one time the owner of the entire village of Nanahri in Hissar district. This village was acquired by the Government for the settlement of displaced persons from Bhakra reservoir area. A compensation of over two lacs of rupees was awarded on the 31st of August, 1956 to the appellants for the land acquired from their father. The appellants thus became land less persons. They then purchased an area of 377 Bighas and 9 Biswas for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/- from their fathers sister, Dhan Kaur on 22nd March, 1958. It is stated that collaterals of Dhan Kaur filed a suit for pre-emption which was decreed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court and it was only ultimately in this Court that in Regular Second Appeal No. 62 of 1960 decided on 18th January, 1961, the suit was dismissed in view of the amendment of the Punjab Pre-emption Act by Act 10 of 1960. Dhan Kaur, as a big landowner had to furnish a return under Section 32-F of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Pepsu Act). But it is stated that since she had no interest left in the matter, she did not furnish any return and consequently the Collector respondent No. 3 acting under Section 32-D of the Pepsu Act, on 26th February, 1960, finally declared an area of 27.83 standard acres in the hands of the respondent No. 4 as surplus. It is common case of the parties that no notice was given of these proceedings under Section 32-D of the Pepsu Act to the appellants who had purchased the land in 1958. According to the appellants they came to know about this declaration of the surplus area on 3rd January, 1963, when proceedings for the allotment of the surplus area were started. Their appeal and revision filed before the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, respectively met with no success. So they filed a writ out of which this appeal has arisen. Inter alia the points taken up by them were that they were interested persons for the declaration of the area as surplus; that they were shown as purchasers in the revenue records after 1958; that under Section 32-FF of the Pepsu Act they being land less persons, the alienation in their favour, which was obviously made in a bona fide manner as is apparent from the fact of a suit having been filed by the collaterals of Dhan Kaur was saved and that, in any case, under the provision to Section 32-FF of the said Act they were entitled to receive back from the transferor the advantage taken by her, namely, a sum of Rupees 50,000/- which was paid to her as the consideration. It was found as a fact that no notice was given, but at the same time it was held that in view of the fact that the appellants were relations of the transferor within the prescribed degree they could not take advantage of the exception given in Section 32-FF and consequently the Government could ignore such a transfer. On this ground the writ petition was dismissed.

3. On behalf of the appellants it was urged, and not without force, that if the appellants were entitled to a notice, the lack of such a notice would vitiate the proceedings to make them null and void, and it is not for the Courts to decide whether what they had to urge would have found favour with the authority concerned. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that so far as the land less persons were concerned, even if they were relations within the prescribed degree, such a transfer would be valid under Section 32-FF and that in any case, if they had been given a hearing, they could have claimed the price that they had paid to the vendor. However, on the other side, the contention raised on behalf of the State was that, as hel