- (1.) This petition has arisen out of the surplus area proceedings of the land of Jang Singh (respondent No. 4) of village Tajoke, Tehsil Barnala, district Sangrur. The land originally belonged to one Likal Singh of village Tajoke who died on 1st October, 1956. Jang Singh's land was declared as surplus on 23rd June, 1964, by the Collector, Barnala, vide Annexure 'A'. Against the order of the Collector, Jang Singh filed an appeal before the Commissioner which was dismissed by him vide his order dated 22nd February, 1965 (Annexure 'B') and a further revision filed before the Financial Commissioner was also dismissed on 30th July, 1965 (Annexure 'C'). In the meantime, the petitioners filed a civil suit in the Court of Sub-Judge Ist class, Barnala, that they are entitled to 4/5th share of the property left by Likal Singh and hence no area is left as surplus with Jung Singh. This petition was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on 24th March, 1966 (Annexure 'E'). It is against this order (Annexure 'E') of the Financial Commissioner that the present writ has been filed.
(2.) The only contention made by the petitioners' counsel is that the petitioners are the legal heirs of Likal Singh and they were not made parties and the order of the Collector declaring the land of Jung Singh as surplus is made behind the back of the petitioners; that Likal Singh had died on 1st October, 1956 and they being his legal heirs are entitled to 4/5th share in the property left by Likal Singh. The Civil Court decree obtained by the petitioners is to be ignored in view of Section 32-DD of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, which reads as under :- "32-DD. Future tenancies in surplus area and certain judgments etc. to be ignored. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, for the purposes of determining the surplus area of any person - (a) a tenancy created after the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956, in any area of land which could have been declared as the surplus area of such person; and (b) any judgment, decree or order of a Court or other authority, obtained after the commencement of that Act and having the effect of diminishing the area of such person which could have been declared as his surplus area; shall be ignored."
(3.) In this case consent decree seems to have been obtained on 19th November, 1965, and under Section 32-DD, the decreed obtained after the commencement of the Act which has the effect of diminishing the surplus area of the landowners has to be ignored. Hence the Civil Court's decree is to be ignored. But the petitioner's claim to be the heirs of Likal Singh and admittedly Jung Singh also had inherited the land as heir of Likal Singh. Although the Civil Court's decree has no effect in this case but the petitioners are entitled to be heard before the disputed land could be declared as surplus. Admittedly, no notice was given to the petitioners by the revenue authorities and the order of the Collector is passed behind the back of the petitioners. In this view of the matter the order of the Financial Commissioner (Annexure 'E') is quashed and the case is remanded to the Collector for redetermining the surplus area of Jung Singh in accordance with law after hearing the petitioners. The parties to appear before the Collector, Sangrur, on 5th May, 1975. There is no order as to costs.;