Rajive Bhalla, J. (Oral):- The petitioners pray for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the orders, dated 20.1.1983 (Annexure P-2) and 6.8.1985 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh respectively.

2. The petitioners are the successors-in-interest of Smt. Shiv Kori, a big landowner as prescribed under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short herein after referred to as “the Punjab Act”). The surplus area case of Smt. Shiv Kori was decided on 19.12.1959 and an area measuring 10 standard acres 8.3/4 units as declared surplus. As consolidation proceedings intervened, Smt. Shiv Kori applied for demarcation of her permissible and surplus area. Vide order, dated 3.3.1967, the Circle Revenue Officer demarcated the permissible and surplus area but inadvertently included the area sold by Smt. Shiv Kori, in her surplus area.

3. Respondents No 4 to 11, the vendees from Smt. Shiv Kori, approached the Collector for rectification of this error. Vide order, dated 12.2.1970, the Collector excluded the area, purchased by respondents No.4 to 11, from the surplus area. Smt. Shiv Kori filed an appeal against the order, dated 12.2.1970 before the Commissioner, Ambala Division. The Commissioner, Ambala Division accepted the appeal, vide order, dated 10.5.1978 and remitted the matter to the Collector for a fresh adjudication. The Collector thereafter passed an order, dated 29.12.1981 holding that as the sale in favour of respondents No.4 to 11 was effected before 30.7.1958, the vendees were entitled to the benefit of Section 8 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short herein after referred to as “the Haryana Act”) and, therefore, their land had to be excluded, while computing the land holding of Smt. Shiv Kori.

4. During the pendency of these proceedings, one Amir Singh ­respondent No.12, (since deceased, and now represented by his L.Rs), filed an application claiming that he was a sitting tenant over Khasra Nos. 48/24, 23, 18, 19/1, 12 and 17, and was, therefore, entitled to the land comprising his tenancy. The Collector rejected his claim. Aggrieved by this order, Amir Singh filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division. Vide order, dated 20.1.1983, the Commissioner held that the land, subject matter of the sale deed, dated 29.1.1958, could not be excluded, as respondents No.4 to 11 were not entitled to the benefit of Section 8 of the Haryana Act. The petitioners thereafter filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana Chandigarh, which was dismissed.

5. Counsel for the petitioners, as also counsel for respondents No.4 to 11 submit in unison that Smt. Shiv Kori executed a sale deed on 29.1.1958. Section 8 of the Haryana Act postulates that a big landowner would be entitled to exclude from his or her landholding, land, sold prior to 30.7.1958. The petitioners and the vendees were, therefore, entitled to pray and have the land, subject matter of their sale deed, excluded from the big landowner’s holding. It is submitted that on the date of enactment of the Haryana Act, the application, filed by respondents No.4 to 11, was pending adjudication and, therefore, the sale, effected prior to 30.7.1958, was to be necessarily excluded, from the big landlord’s holding. It is further argued that the Commissioner, as also the Financial Commissioner have, upon an erroneous interpretation of the provisions of Section 8 of the Haryana Act, held that the Collector could not grant the benefit of Section 8 of the Haryana Act to the petitioners.

6. Counsel for the L.Rs of respondent No.12, on the other hand, submits that with the coming into force of the Haryana Act, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 12(3), surplus area, declared under the Punjab Act, would automatically vest in the State of Haryana. The Commissioner, and the Financial Commissioner rightly set aside the order, passed