The division of the erstwhile State of Punjab into Punjab and Haryana did not affect the status of a landlord whose surplus land was determined before the division, and the area determined as surplus at that time remained surplus.

Vishnu Bhagwan, FC. - This is a revision petition under section 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 read with section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and section 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 for setting aside the orders dated 24.1.1990 and 14.1.1993 of the Collector, Surplus Area, Dabwali and the Commissioner, Sirsa Division, respectively and for acceptance of the revision petition allowing the land in dispute to be allotted to be petitioners.

2. Facts of the case are that Kulwant Singh, respondent No. 2 had been owning 122.53 ordinary acres of agricultural land situated in villages Panniwala Mahla, Bhanger Khera and Budhi Gulab Singh, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepore and village Maujgarh, Tehsil Sirsa, District Hisar. This land included 42.21 ordinary acres of evacuee land (hereinafter called the disputed land) situated in village Maujgarh, Tehsil Dabwali allotted to the Respondent No. 2 in 1949 under the East Punjab Displaced Persons (Lands Resettlement) Act, 1949. The Special Collector, Punjab vide his order dated 28.11.1961 leaving 30 standard acres i.e. 30.43 ordinary aces as permissible area of the respondent No. 2 declared 48.14 standard acres (i.e. 92.10 ordinary acres) as surplus. The surplus declared land included the disputed land. Thereafter in a review petition the Special Collector, Punjab vide his order dated 15.3.1962 in case No. 172 (Ferozepur) took out the disputed land of the surplus pool on the ground that its proprietary rights had not by then been given to the respondent No. 2. On the other hand the disputed land was allotted in 1965- 66 to Pokhar, Sohni, Arjun, Hazara etc. present petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 and the respondent No. 3 in accordance with the surplus case order dated 28.11.1961; litigation between the landowners and the tenants then continued in different courts. The Collector Dabwali (SDO Civil) as Appellate Authority decided vide order dated 24.7.1979 that since the land being surplus had vested in the State, the respondent No. 2 was not eligible for getting Batai from the petitioners and respondent No. 3. Then the respondent Kulwant Singh filed a Civil suit which was dismissed on 28.2.1986 but in an appeal against it the Additional District and Session Judge, Sirsa vide his order dated 14.10.1986 set aside the lower civil court order holding that the respondent was owner of the disputed land till it was not declared as surplus by the competent authority. State was also implead as party. The tenant petitioners then filed an appeal before the High Court who dismissed the same vide order dated 2.6.1987. Thereafter the tenants moved an application dated 6.5.1988 before the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector, Surplus Area, Dabwali under section 5(c) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 for conferment of proprietary rights upon them treating them B category tenants as the disputed land had been declared surplus vide order dated 28.11.1961 and vested in the State w.e.f. 24.1.1971 under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972; and had been allotted to them being ejected tenants. The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector, Surplus Area, Dabwali heard the parties and concluded that the respondent No. 2 was entitled to keep in his possession 60 ordinary acres of land situated in Haryana State, under the old Act; whereas he owned only 42.21 ordinary acres of land in the State. Accordingly the Collector (S.A.) vide his order dated 24.1.1990 declared the respondent No. 2 as small landowner subject to the condition that the land exceeding 60 ordinary acres if found in his possession, would be treated as surplus area. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners Pokhar etc. filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Hisar Division for setting aside the order dated 24.1.1990 of the Collector (S.A.), Dabwali and allowing proprietary rights of the disputed land in their favour on the grounds that the respondent No. 2 owned 92.10 o