JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J.

Consideration in the present 2 appeals is to the order dated 05.05.2017 passed in CWP-14143 & 17111-2009filed by the appellants which were dismissed by the learned Single Judge upholding the orders passed by the authorities below vide which the appellants-tenants had been ordered to be evicted. The subsequent order of review dated 23.04.2018 is also subject matter of challenge as it was passed in pursuance of the fact that earlier LPA-927 & 1198-2017wherein plea had been taken that the appellants were tenants in the land which was declared surplus in the hands of the respondent-landlord which denied them any right to seek eviction.

2. Since an order dated 31.01.1990 (Annexure P-14) had been placed on record passed by the revenue authorities in this regard and the Co-ordinate Bench had noticed that the learned Single Judge was deprived of the benefit of these documents and therefore, the appellants were permitted to pursue their remedy before the learned Single Judge by apprising him of the said document and inviting a finding on this vide order dated 06.07.2017. Resultantly, when the matter went back in review, the learned Single Judge noticed that the order which had been relied upon before the Division Bench was dated 30.01.1990 (Annexure P-14) which rather had been set aside on an appeal filed by the landowners before the Commissioner on 23.08.1994 (Annexure A-1) and the redetermination of surplus land was done on 22.10.2002 (Annexure P- 15/R-5/1) and vide order dated 31.03.2003 (Annexure P-15/R-5/2), the land in dispute had been kept in the permissible area of the landowners.

3. Resultantly, the learned Single Judge while dismissing the review, came to the conclusion that the argument raised that the tenants had applied for declaring the permissible area in the proceedings as per the Punjab Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (for short, the 1955 Act') and the utilization scheme of 1973 provided for a limitation for applying for declaration of permissible area and there was no such instructions from the appellants whether they had done so. Similarly, it was noticed that the appeal before the authorities were filed on 20.08.2017 against the order of declaration of the area surplus dated 22.10.2002 (Annexure P-15) for not having availed the remedy in accordance with land and it was a delaying tactic to retain the possession by adopting all possible methods and the conduct of the appellants was deprecated. The factum that the appeal would not be maintainable as the dispute between choosing the land was between the State and big landowners, was also observed. It was also noticed that the earlier Bench was misled by raising the plea that the order dated 30.01.1990 had attained finality and there was no error apparent on the record.

4. Though Mr.Chopra has tried to argue that the issue No.6A was a contentious issue on which no firm findings had been given by the authorities below and therefore has challenged the orders saying that there was no reasoning given apart from the first order passed by the Assistant Collector. It is submitted that it was the duty of the Collector under Section 6 of the PUNJAB LAND REFORMS ACT , 1972 (for short, the 1972 Act') to get the requisite information and that there was a right to challenge the order dated 22.10.2002 (Annexure P-15).

5. A perusal of the paperbook would also go on to show that the eviction has been ordered of the appellants from the land measuring 582 kanals 17 marlas situated in the revenue estate of Village Naraingarh Wasawa Singh Wala @ Adaltiwala on the ground that the chakota (rent) was of Rs.12000/- per year and there were arrears. Eventually, eviction had been ordered for the years 1985-86 and 1987-88 by holding out that the appellants-tenants had started cultivating their land since 1975 and there was nothing to show that they were in cultivating possession prior to 1975 from the documentary evidence.

6. In such circumstances, Mr.Jain,