A person whose interests are likely to be affected by a declaration of surplus area under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act has a right to be heard and is entitled to claim a decision on merits by approaching the Collector for this purpose, even if his name is not mentioned in Form D or in the revenue records.

MANMOHAN SINGH GUJRAL, J.

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Collector, Gurgaon, dated 31st October, 1966, whereby he had dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for review of the earlier order of the Collector dated 4th December, 1969.

2. The facts necessary for the decision of this petition are not seriously in dispute and may be stated thus, Land measuring 174 bighas 1 biswa situated in village Bhandor was originally owned by Choudhry Manohar Lal and after his death it was mutated in the name of his wife Maqtul Kaur respondent No. 4. In obedience to the wishes of Manohar Lal, his widow Maqtul Kaur adopted the petitioner as a son to her deceased husband through a registered adoption deed dated 27th July, 1952. Not realising that by this adoption the petitioner had become owner of the entire land of his adoptive father, Maqtul Kaur gifted 33 bighas of land to the petitioner out of the land situated in village Bhandor. At the time of the adoption and this gift the petitioner was a minor. During the next three or four years Maqtul Kaur somehow developed a strain of hostility towards Ashok Kumar petitioner; and to give practical shape to these feelings of animosity, Maqtul Kaur sold about 41 bighas of land to Polu Ram, etc., in 1957 and 1958 and gifted the remaining land to her daughters on 20th May, 1958. On learning about the alienations, Ashok Kumar challenged, them through a civil suit which was ultimately decreed by the Subordinate Judge First Class, Rewari, and this decree was maintained up to the High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 161 of 1961 decided on 23rd October, 1963. The decree being for possession of the land left by Manohar Lal, Ashok Kumar obtained possession in execution of this decree on 15th April, 1964.

3. After the coming into force of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter called the Act) proceedings were started to declare surplus area out of the land left by Manohar Lal and, as in the revenue records this land at the relevant time stood in the name of Maqtul Kaur, notice was only issued to her and in Form D only she was shown as being in possession of the land. Probably, as on account of the adoption, she had no right, title or interest left in the land, Maqtul Kaur did not put up a serious resistance in these proceedings and not only allowed an adverse order to be passed by the Collector but did not even challenge this order in appeal and thereby permitted it to assume finality. This order of the Collector was passed on 4th December, 1959. It may be mentioned at this stage that at the time the proceedings were taken the petitioner was still a minor.

4. After the termination of the proceedings under the Act Ashok Kumar obtained possession of the land in execution of the decree obtained by him and subsequently, he was allotted other land during consolidation proceedings in lieu of the land that he had inherited from his adoptive father Manohar Lal. On 27th July, 1966, the petitioner received a notice under Section 24-A (2) of the Act calling upon him to select his reserve area out of the land allotted to him in consolidation proceedings and it was then that the petitioner learnt for the first time that some area out of his inherited land had earlier been declared as surplus. In the firm belief that there was no surplus area in his hands the petitioner at once filed objections before the Circle Revenue Officer and contested the notice. By order dated 22nd August, 1966, the Circle Revenue Officer held that he had no jurisdiction to hear any objections regarding the validity of the order passed by the Collector declaring the land of Maqtul Kaur as surplus and directed the applicant to approach the Collector in case he had any grievance about this matter. Having failed to obtain relief, the petitioner filed a review application and on this petition, the Collector passed the impugned order.

5. The p