The main legal point established is the mandatory requirement of serving notice to a tenant during surplus area proceedings, and the tenant's entitlement to reserve land as permissible area under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953.

Rajive Bhalla, J.

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner is for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the orders dated 6.7.1984 (Annexure P-1), 22.8.1986 (Annexure P-3) and 23.6.1987 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Collector Surplus Area, Sirsa, the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana respectively.

2. The petitioner claims the status of a tenant over land measuring 10 Kanals 13 Marias comprised in Rect. No. 113, Killa No. 18/2 (2-13) and 23(8-00) situated in Village Nanuana, Tehsil and District, Sirsa, under the big land owner respondent No. 5. Prior to 1947 and upto Rabi 1967, the afore mentioned land was in the possession of one Bhanwar Singh as a tenant. From Kharif 1967, the petitioner claims to have been inducted as a tenant by the big land owner and claims to be in possession, as such till date.

3. Pursuant to proceedings, initiated under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 1953 Act), the Collector vide order dated 22.1.1962 determined the permissible/surplus area belonging to the big land owner-respondent No. 5.

4. An appeal filed against this order, before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar was successful and the case was remanded to the Collector, Surplus Area vide order dated 29.8.1963. The Collector determined the surplus area afresh vide order dated 30.6.1983 once again remanded the matter to the Collector, Surplus Area, with a specific direction to decide the case afresh, after granting full opportunity of hearing to the landowner, as also to all tenants and vendees.

5. After remand, the surplus area case of respondent No. 5 was decided vide order dated 6.7.1984 (Annexure P-1). The land, compromising the alleged tenancy of the petitioner was declared surplus.

6. Aggrieved by the order Annexure P-1, vide which land comprised in the petitioners tenancy was declared surplus, the petitioner preferred an appeal, before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, claiming therein that the order Annexure P-1 was void, qua his rights as a tenant, as no notice had been issued or served upon him during the course of proceedings which culminated in the order Annexure P-1. The petitioner also asserted his right to have the land comprised in his tenancy, reserved as tenants permissible area in accordance with the right conferred upon a tenant under the provisions of the 1953 Act. Vide order dated 22.8.1986, the Commissioner dismissed the appeal, holding that as land belonging to the land owner was situated in several villages with numerous vendees and tenants, service was effected by proclamation. Therefore, the petitioner would be deemed to have been served. On merits, the petitioners claim for declaration of the land, comprised in his tenancy as tenants permissible area was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not a tenant on 15.4.1953 having been induced as a tenant with effect from Kharif 1967.

7. Dis-satisfied with the afore mentioned order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. The said revision was dismissed.

8. Before proceeding to notice the respective contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to mention here that despite the pendency of this writ petition since 1987, the official respondents, have failed to file a response to a writ petition whether by way of a reply or by way of an affidavit. During the course of arguments, the official respondents also failed to produce any record, despite being conscious of the fact that in proceedings for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, the respondents are obliged to make available to the Court, as and when required all the relevant record.

9. Counsel for the petitioner, assails the impugned orders dated 6.7.1984 (Annexure P-1), 22.8.1986 (Annexure P-3) and 23.6.1987 (Annexure P-4) primarily on three grounds :-

a) The petitioner, ad