K.KANNAN, J. - (1.) THE case involves the examination of provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act -Sections 5 -A and 5 -B (hereinafter called, ''Punjab Law ''). The point urged is that if the landowner who holds an extent over the ceiling area did not make a declaration, the State was bound to initiate action under Section 5 -B and the expression that the State may take action must be taken as a mandate under the said provision. This has an immediate bearing to a consideration of whether the tenant would be entitled to hold the whole of the property as falling within the tenant's ceiling area.
(2.) THE problem is accentuated by the fact that the landlord did not make any declaration under the Punjab Law and she gave a declaration only after the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act of 1972 (for short the, '1972 Act') was passed. Section 9 of the 1972 Act allowed for the landowner who held land in excess of the permissible area to give a declaration supported by an affidavit giving the particulars of his land which he/she wanted to retain. The property held by the tenant was left in surplus pool and the State proceeded to make the payment under the Haryana Utilization of Surplus and other Area Scheme of 1976 (for short, the 1976 Scheme'). The tenant, who held the land which would have been within his permissible area under the Punjab Law was affected by the categorization assigned to him, namely, as a category 'CC' tenant that had an immediate bearing on the extent of land that could be legitimized as falling within his entitlement. While a category 'A' tenant could hold the land declared as the tenant's permissible area under the Punjab Law, a category 'C' tenant was entitled to hold only 2 hectares of land. The Punjab Law permitted for 30 standard acres or 60 ordinary acres of land as falling within his permissible area. The counsel would refer to a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Brij Lal and others Versus State of Haryana and others -2001(1) PLJ 148 that dealt with a situation of the landowner dying before the surplus area was determined and the heirs not being treated as separate landowners for ceiling purposes. The case was considered in the light of the law which would be applicable before determination could be done, namely, of the Punjab Law or under the 1972 Act. The counsel would refer to the following observations which have come about subsequent to the court setting out the point for consideration. In para 12, this court in the above judgment observed as follows: - ''The sole question to be considered is whether the Financial Commissioner had the power and the jurisdiction to direct that the Collector should decide the surplus area cases of Pat Ram and his sons afresh and then determine if they were big landowners either in their individual capacity or upon inheritance and thereafter decide the case under the Haryana Law and the ejectment application thereafter. '' It provided to hold thus: - ''........ This order was also contrary to the order of remand dated January 18, 1996, whereunder the matter had been remanded only for a fresh decision after hearing the tenants. Furthermore, the determination of the cases of some of the sons of Pat Ram by the Collector on July 20, 1977 and August 9, 1977 was also illegal as their respective cases under the Punjab Law had not been previously determined. Resultantly, the orders of the Financial Commissioner passed in ROR Nos.381, 398 and 528 of 1992 -93 were perfectly legal and just and are hereby upheld. ''
(3.) THE argument was that following the procedure directed by the Division Bench, the Commissioner's determination of the status as a category 'C' tenant must be set aside and the tenant shall be allowed the benefit of reopening the tenant's permissible area under the Punjab Law and only as regards the remaining property, proceedings under the Haryana Act could be taken.;