The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of tenancy rights under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, and the effect of a consent decree on the rights of the parties involved.

I. The subject matter of lis

1. The writ petition is at the instance of some persons claiming to be tenants of the property which had been declared as surplus and allotted to eligible persons under the scheme pursuant to the declaration made under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. Admittedly, the holding of one Kashmir Singh was said to be in excess of the ceiling area and declared as such on 30.07.1976. The declaration specified 217 kanals of land as falling in surplus pool and the order of the Collector had not been challenged by the landowner himself. This declaration was admittedly after the landowner had also given his reservation in form-A. After allotment in favour of private respondents 5 to 7, mutation had been made in their names and the property had been delivered possession of.

2. The allotment and possession were sought to be impeached at the instance of the present petitioners who claimed that the property had been in their possession as tenants long before the date of the notification and, therefore, all the proceedings that had been taken without notice to them and without allowing for reservations to be made by them were incompetent. The key issue at the time when objection was taken was whether they were actually having any right in respect of the property and by the order of the Commissioner, the matter had been remitted to the Collector for giving opportunity to the persons claiming the rights of tenancy and pass appropriate orders. The Collector had purported to have caused a local inspection and he held that the petitioners were actually tenants in their possession before declaration and the entries which had been made in jamabandis for the relevant year of the year 1971-72 had been wrongly cast. He found that the jamabandi entries for the previous years from 1966 were in the name of the petitioners and others and it was only a stray entry in the year 1971-72 where the properties were shown as to be in personal cultivation of the big landowner-Kashmir Singh. This order of the Collector finding that the petitioners were tenants was appealed against by the allottees on a plea that the petitioners were close relatives of the landowner and they had deliberately set up tenancy to exclude lands from being treated as surplus. The Commissioner found two important facts as relevant: one, the petitioners were the uncle of the landowner, being father's first wife's brother. If it was wrong entry at their instance, it was not merely a wrong entry at the instance of the revenue authorities, but it was a case where the landowner himself had given the properties as held under his personal cultivation in form-A. While the Commissioner allowed the appeal finding that the entry of the properties as khud kast was relevant, the Financial Commissioner reasoned that the landowner Kashmir Singh had himself signed the proforma filling up in column 6 of form-A that the property claimed by the petitioners was in his personal cultivation. The Financial Commissioner also noted from the file of the Collector Agrarian that he had recorded a statement of Kashmir Singh on 30.07.1976 that he opted to surrender the land as property held by him and he had not referred to the property as held by the petitioners as tenants.

II. Grounds of challenge

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners assails the order passed by the Commissioner as affirmed by the Financial Commissioner on a plea that the actual holding of the property in the hands of the petitioners was noticed from the jamabandi entries of 1966 itself and admittedly, they were entries subsequent to the declaration as well. What was entered as in the hands of the landowner was but a stray entry which ought to be discarded. The counsel would also refer to the fact that the petitioners were not close relatives of the landowner as claimed and he would refer to the landowner's own statement that he was barely 6 years old at the time of partition when he came from the plac