- (1.) THESE two Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 680 and 681 of 1974, which arise out of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1871 and 1799 of 1974 respectively, will be disposed of by this common judgment because a similar law point is involved in both these appeals.
(2.) LETTERS Patent Appeal No. 680 of 1974 has been filed by the Secretary to government, Punjab, Revenue Department and others, against the judgment of m. R. Sharma, J. , dated October 16, 1974, accepting Civil Writ Petition No. 1871 of 1974 filed by Jagar Singh, Nazar Singh and Banta Singh, sons of sunder Singh, residents of village Mehraj, Tahsil and District Bhatinda, now respondents, and quashing the orders dated March 18, 1974, and April 11, 1974, (copies Annxs. P-3 and P-4 respectively) passed by the Collector agrarian, Bhatinda. Letters Patent Appeal No. 681 of 1974 has been filed by the Collector Agrarian, and Tehsildar, Bhatinda, against the orders of M. R. Sharma, j. , of the same date, allowing Civil Writ Petn No. 1799 of 1974, filed by Harbans singh, Harjit Kaur, and Hardipinder Singh, now respondents, quashing the orders of the Collector Agrarian. Bhatinda. dated April 8, 1974 (copy Annexure p-3 ).
(3.) THE facts as they emerge from C. W. P. No. 1871 of 1974, are that Jagar singh, Nazar Singh and Banta Singh (hereinafter called the writ petitioners) are the sons of Sunder Singh who was landowner in the revenue estate of village mehraj, Tehsil and District Bhatinda, and owned agricultural land measuring 60. 06 standard acres on April 18, 1953, that is, on the date of enforcement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. It has been averred that sunder Singh in his lifetime had partitioned the land in five equal shares in a family partition, which was duly entered in the Roznamcha of the Patwari and a mutation was also attested before 1953, between the three petitioners, their brother Bhaga Singh (since dead) and himself. The proceedings for the assessment of surplus area relating to the lend owned by Sunder Singh had been taken up by the Collector Agrarian, Bhatinda, who by his order, dated april 24, 1959, declared Sunder Singh to be owning 29. 6 standard acres as surplus area, However, on appeal the aforesaid order was set aside by the commissioner, Patiala Division, and the case was remanded for determining surplus area afresh. Thereafter the Collector Agrarian, Bhatinda, vide his order dated March 29, 1971, declared 30. 06 standard acres as surplus with Sunder singh. Against that order Sunder Singh went in appeal before the commissioner, but without success. His revision before the Financial commissioner also failed, vide orders, dated. December 21, 1971, and May 31, 1972, respectively. But after the decision of the appeal and the revision, no steps were taken by the Agrarian authorities to take possession of the surplus area or to settle tenants thereon, with the result that Sunder Singh continued to remain in possession of the land which was declared surplus. Sunder Singh died on May 2, 1974, and on his death the entire holding was inherited by the three writ-petitioners and their brother Bhaga Singh and thus they became owners of that land in equal shares. Bhaga Singh also died leaving behind three sons, namely, Karnail Singh, Jarnail Singh and Babu Singh. It was further asserted that in view of the death of Sunder Singh, the order declaring his land as surplus area cannot be executed since the estate of Sunder Singh deceased had vested in the writ petitioners and Bhaga Singh's sons in equal shares and, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 32-FF of the Pepsu Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act. 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Pepsu Law), no surplus area was left with them for being utilized by the State Government. It is then stated that vide letter, dated March 13, 1974, the Collector Agrarian, bhatinda, directed the Tahsildar Bhatinda, that the area declared surplus vide his order, dated March 29, 1971 (copy Annexure P-1) be taken into possession immediately and report be sent within a week's time and then another letter issued by the Collector, dated April 11, 1974, followed relating to the same matter. Copies of the aforesaid letters were attached as Annexures P-3 and P-4 with the writ petition. In pursuance of the aforesaid letters, it is alleged, the patwari of the Circle made enquiries from the writ petitioners and asked them to deliver possession of the surplus land, and that when the matter was explained to the Patwari that since Sunder Singh had died, there was no question of taking possession of any land as surplus, the Patwari expressed his helplessness to do anything since he was bound by the orders of the Collector. Feeling aggrieved against the directions of the Collector, contained in annexures p-3 and P-4, to take into possession the surplus area owned by sunder Singh, their father, the writ petitioners approached this Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to seek a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders, copieg Annexures P-1, P-3 and P-4, and for the issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring that no surplus land was available with the writ petitioners and for restraining the Agrarian authorities from dispossessing the writ petitioners from the land declared surplus by the order, copy Annexure P-l. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents to this writ petition, shri Amrao Singh, Under-Secretary to Government, Punjab, Revenue department, stated in reply to paragraph 2 of the writ petition that Sunder singh landowner owned agricultural land measuring 60. 06 standard acres, but denied that the Pepsu Law was over enforced in village Mehraj of the writ petitioners, which village was cover-ed by the Punjab Security of Land Tenures act. 1953 (hereinafter called the pun-jab Law ). The learned single Judge, as already stated, accepted the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders, copies Annexures P-3 and P-4, passed by the Collector Agrarian, Bhatinda.;