Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral) - The writ petition challenges the orders passed by the authorities constituted under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter called, ‘the 1972 Act’). The point in issue is the effect of the provisions under Section 12(1) as to how reckoning of vesting of surplus land is to be construed in a situation where the landowner in whose hands the property was said to remain in excess of the ceiling area had actually died before the property was taken possession of by the State and succession had opened. To this effect, the question raised will have to be seen in the context of Section 8 of the Act that excepts certain transfers and dispositions that would not affect the surplus area. One of the exceptions is a survival of interest of heir by inheritance.

2. Some more facts would be necessary to understand the case in its full perspective. The landowner was one Ralla Singh also called as Ralla Ram, who had been proceeded with originally under the Security of Land Tenures Act and his holding was described to fall within surplus area by order dated 10.01.1961. This order was a subject of challenge in a writ petition before this court and this court by its order dated 21.10.1969 set aside the order of the Collector and directed a fresh consideration. When the consideration was so undertaken, it was noticed that there had been a large chunk of land that had been treated as banjar and, therefore, they were not required to be reckoned for the purpose of computation of the total holdings. The proceedings that would obtain relevance for us for consideration would be the order passed by the Commissioner on 31.01.1972 who directed that the Collector, Thanesar would decide the case on merits on the law applicable on the day, namely, on the day when he passed an order dated 31.01.1972 and also directed notice of hearing to various alienees of properties prior to 30.07.1958 and tenants who had been in possession as such on or after 15.04.1953. By the order passed on 14.06.1973, the Collector held on remand that he had served notices to transferees, but they failed to appear to make no reference about any notice to tenants. The Collector held 48 standard acres as falling as surplus area and that Form-F should be issued. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would defy the State to say that no form- F issued subsequently.

3. Soon after the order was passed on 14.06.1973 and before the issue of form-F, the landowner Ralla Singh @ Ralla Ram died on 10.10.1973. It is the effect of his death that falls for consideration in this petition, for, the contention urged on behalf of the representatives of the deceased was that by virtue of Section 8 and Section 12(1), the property having fallen to succession, the holding must be reckoned in the hands of the legal heirs and the holding of Ralla Singh cannot be taken as relevant for the purpose of determination of surplus. The State view which prevailed with the authorities of the Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner through cryptic orders passed under P4, P5 and P6 were to the effect that since the death had been subsequent to the date when the Act come into force and when the declaration was made by the Collector, the death of the landowner was irrelevant.

4. The learned senior counsel referred me to the provisions under Section 12 as it existed on the day when the order of the Collector was made as per the directions of the Commissioner. The order passed by the Commissioner on 13.01.1992 declaring the property as surplus, no doubt was rendered at the time when the owner was still alive but the law as it existed at that time according to him made the vesting of surplus area to take effect only on the date on which possession was taken. Admittedly, possession had not been taken. Section 12 underwent a change through an amendment brought by Act 40 of 1976 w.e.f. 05.02.1976. Section 12(1) underwent a change in so far a