JUDGMENT

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dt.01.12.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP-15660-1992

2. The appellants are the Legal Representatives of the original appellant Bishana.

3. The said Bishana had filed the said Writ Petition to quash orders dt.26.08.1992 in ROR-279/1982-93 passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 24 of the PUNJAB SECURITY OF LAND TENURES ACT , 1953 read with Section 18 of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972, confirming order dt.17.05.1983 passed by the respondent No.3.

4. Respondent No.3 in his order dt.17.05.1983 had in turn confirmed the order dt.31.03.1982 of Collector Agrarian, Guhla passed under Section 80 of the PUNJAB TENANCY ACT , 1887 in Appeal No.180 of 1971-82.

5. The original appellant had approached the Collector Agrarian, Guhla along with others claiming that he had purchased certain land from one Jai Pal s/o Sharda Ram, who was a big landowner, and sought exemption of the purchased land from the surplus pool under the Act. He had contended that he is a small landowner and had less than 10 acre area and is not related to the big landowner. There was also a pleading that he was cultivating the land as a tenant.

6. The Naib Tehsildar, Agrarian refuted the same and contended that the area of the big landowner Jai Pal had been declared surplus under the PUNJAB SECURITY OF LAND TENURES ACT , 1953 on 28.07.1960 and 12.05.1978; that the purchase by the original appellant and others was on 11.07.1966 and 22.02.1971; and as per certain instructions of the Government issued on 15.04.1966, the said area cannot be released from surplus pool.

7. The Collector held in his order dt. 31.3.1982 that since the sales were effected after 15.04.1966 and since only buyers of land before the said date could be given exemption of 10 standard acres each, the area cannot be exempted from the surplus pool and rejected the applications filed by the original appellant.

8. The original appellant then preferred an appeal to the Commissioner, Ambala Division (respondent No.3) by filing Appeal No.180 of the year 1971-82 on 22.04.1982. He confirmed the order of the Collector Agrarian, Guhla made on 31.03.1982.

9. Before the Appellate Authority the original appellant and others contended that the land in dispute was in a reserved area of the landowners and had not even been declared as a surplus, but the appellate authority held that he could not prove that the land in dispute was under the reserved area of the big landowner. He also held that the Assistant District Attorney argued that the appellants themselves in their application had requested the Collector Agrarian, Guhla to exempt the land in dispute from the surplus area from the big landowners, and so the land in question cannot be said to be under a reserved area.

10. Accepting the said contention, respondent No.3 held that the land in dispute cannot be released from the surplus area as the original appellant and others had purchased it after 15.04.1966.

11. The original appellant then filed ROR-279/1882-93 before the respondent No.2 under Section 24 of the PUNJAB SECURITY OF LAND TENURES ACT , 1953 and Section 18 of the Haryana Ceiling of Land holdings Act, 1972.

12. The said revision was also dismissed by order dt.26.08.1992. Respondent No.2 in the said order held that the original appellant's contentions that he and others were tenants on 15.04.1953, and they should have been given a notice before the surplus case was decided cannot be accepted since the Collector Agrarian had held on 12.05.1978 that the big landowner had surplus land and the said order had attained finality.

13. He further held that the original appellant had not produced any evidence to show that he was a tenant and this Court had held in a decision reported in AIR 1975 Punjab and Haryana 369 that notice to the purchaser of the land was not obligatory under the law.

14. He further held that the original appellant had been taking