Daya Krishan Mahajan, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution raises an interesting question and arises out of the following facts:
(2.) MAGHAR Singh was the owner of the land. In the proceedings taken under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act for determination of the surplus area held by him, the Collector declared 45 Standard Acres 7 1/4 Units to be surplus. Against this order an appeal was preferred by Maghar Singh and during the pendency of the appeal, Maghar Singh died and his three sons and one daughter, who are his heirs by inheritance, were impleaded in the appeal. Before the Commissioner they raised the contention that by reason of the death of Maghar Singh, the land having come to them by inheritance and the,ir respective shares being less than the permissible area, could not tie declared surplus in the altered circumstances. This contention did not prevail with the Commissioner with the result that he dismissed the appeal. A revision to the Financial Commissioner also met with no success. It may be mentioned that before the Financial Commissioner, the sons and the daughter raised the only contention that the land in question was awarded to their father for gallantry and, therefore, is exempt from consideration under Section 19 -D of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. This contention was negatived by the Financial Commissioner and the revision petition was dismissed.
(3.) IN the grounds of appeal before the Commissioner, however, they had taken the ground which was rejected by him, namely, that the death of Maghar Singh had altered the entire situation and, therefore, no area could be declared surplus in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Act. The present petition is directed against the orders of the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner.;