A review petition under Section 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 is maintainable even after coming into force of Section 33 of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. The proceedings for determination of surplus area are pending for the purpose of review in spite of final decision of the case.

1. Briefly the case of the petitioners is that Smt. Rukmani Devi, respondent No. 2, was a displaced person from Bahawalpur State in Pakistan, and was allotted 38.70 Standard Acres of land in her own right in lieu of the land left by her in Pakistan. Her husband, Suraj Bhan, was allotted some land in District Hissar, Suraj Bhan died in the year 1955 and Smt. Rukmani Devi, being his widow, inherited his property. After inheritance she became owner of 44.98 Standard Acres of land. She sold an area measuring 28 Bighas and 2 Biswas for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/- to Smt. Saraswati Devi, her daughter, on May 16, 1958. Smt. Saraswati Devi sold that land to the petitioners on January 29, 1960, for Rs. 15,000 by a registered sale deed.

2. Surplus area proceedings were started by the Collector Agrarian, Sirsa, against Smt. Rukmani Devi, but she was declared a small landowner by him vide his order dated November 30, 1961. The said order was reviewed by him vide his order dated March 10, 1964 and it was held that she was a big landowner and had 46.29 Ordinary Acres as surplus area. One Ladhu Ram, tenant of Smt. Rukmani Devi, filed an appeal against the order of the Collector, dated March 10, 1964, to the Commissioner, who allowed the same and reversed the judgment of the Collector. In revision against that order to the Financial Commissioner, it was reversed and the order of the Collector dated March 10, 1964 was confirmed. The petitioners, it is alleged, were not made parties by the Collector, to the surplus area case and were not served with notices at the time when area was declared surplus in the hands of Smt. Rukmani Devi though their names appeared in the revenue papers. Similarly they were not impleaded as parties before the Commissioner or the Financial Commissioner.

3. Surplus area proceedings were also started against Smt. Saraswati Devi, who has since died, and the area sold by her to the petitioners was declared as surplus area by the Collector Agrarian on August 21, 1961, in her hands. The petitioners were not made parties in those proceedings also by the Collector. The petitioners, it is stated, never came to know about these proceedings. They having come to know of the order of the Collector dated August 21, 1961, filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division. On the basis of a compromise between the parties, the Commissioner reserved the area sold to the petitioners in the hands of Smt. Saraswati Devi and she surrendered an equivalent area from her own permissible area in village Keharwala to the surplus pool on June 4, 1963. Consequently he accepted the appeal. The petitioners thus, it is stated, remained in possession of the whole land purchased by them.

4. In the year 1972, the Agrarian Authorities allotted land owned by the petitioners to Des Raj and Amar Chand, respondents Nos. 7 and 8, and delivered possession of 41 Kanals and 16 Marlas, out of the land purchased by the petitioners, to them on July 11, 1972. When respondents Nos. 7 and 8 were delivered possession of the land in dispute, the petitioners came to know of the fact that the area sold to them had been declared surplus in the hands of Smt. Rukmani Devi, respondent. They consequently filed an appeal to the Commissioner, Ambala Division, at Hissar, on July 30, 1972. The Commissioner, vide his order dated December 20, 1972, accepted the appeal on the ground that a notice should have been served on the petitioners as they were interested parties and remanded the case to the Collector with a direction that a fresh assessment order be passed in their presence. The Collector Agrarian, in pursuance of the order of remand, on March 15, 1973, ordered restoration of the land sold to the petitioners and declared an equal area belonging to Smt. Rukmani Devi as surplus area. He further ordered that an equal area of Rukmani Devi be allotted to respondents Nos. 7 and 8. Respondents Nos. 7 and 8, against the order of restoration of possession by the C