Daya Krishan Mahajan, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Collector declaring certain area of land belonging to the Petitioner as surplus. The order was challenged on a number of grounds both before the authorities below and in this Court. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has confined his arguments to three matters, namely: 1. that the valuation of land has not been correctly fixed. The valuation has been fixed under Rule 5 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1958, read with Schedule 'A' to the Rules and the contention is that Schedule 'A' is ultra vires the Act and the Rules;
(2.) THAT there is an orchard on the land for which the necessary exemption under Section 32 -K of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has not been allowed; and That under the provisions of the Riwaj -i -am of Malerkotla, the Petitioner and his sons were separate owners of the land and the entire land could not be treated as land of the Petitioner for the purposes of determination of the surplus area. 2. So far as the last two contentions are concerned, they may be disposed of first, because none of them has any merit. 3. As regards the contention concerning the orchard the order of the Pepsu Land Commission has not been filed along with the petition. Moreover, the petition challenging That order has been filed two years after the order was passed and on the ground of laches I am not inclined to go into this matter, particularly when the dispute is on a question of fact. The Commission declared That the orchard was not planted within the period provided in the Act. The contention of the Petitioner was That the orchard was planted within That period. Therefore, it is evident That the sole question That required determination under the second contention is a pure question of fact and cannot be gone into in these extraordinary proceedings. Therefore, this contention is overruled.
(3.) AS regards the third contention, it was pressed in a half -hearted manner and there is no substance in it. It is more or less on the same basis as is the contention with regard to the members of the joint Hindu Family. The revenue records do not show that the sons are entered as owners along with the father and the question as to what are the rights of the sons under the Riwaj -i -am is a question which has to be deter mined in a regular proceedings and cannot be gone into in these extraordinary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, I repel the third contention as well.;