B.S. Dhillon, J. - (1.) CIVIL Writ Petitions Nos. 1583 of 1974, 3895, 4242, 4254. 4204, 4290, 4348, 4349, 4350, 4372 and 4375 of 1976 are being disposed of by this common judgment as the facts and the question of law involved in the said writ petitions are common.
(2.) THE brief facts, giving rise to writ petition No. 1583 of 1974 may, thus be stated. Smt. Parbati owned landed property in Pakistan. She had two daughters namely Nidh Kaur and Sidh Kaur. It is claimed that she gifted away her property in favour of her two daughters vide gift deed in 1932. This gift deed was allegedly challenged by Gian Singh and another, collaterals of the husband of Smt. Parbati, on the ground that she had no authority to dispose of the property by gift in favour of her daughters. This dispute went upto the Lahore High Court and was settled in a judgment which is reported in Mt. Nidh Kaur and another v. Gian Singh and another, A.I.R. 1938 Lah. 55. In spite of the alleged gift deed in favour of her daughters, it is not disputed that after the partition of the country the land was allotted in the name of bun. Parbati in Punjab. Smt. Parbati, on her migration to this part of the country, got the possession of the land and continued to be its owner till 24th June, 1966, where she died. On 14th March, 1961, the Collector exercising the powers under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, (hereinafter called the Act), declared a considerable area owned by Smt. Parbati as surplus. This order was challenged by her before the Commissioners. The Commissioner vide his order dated 13th November, 1961, remanded the case. Copy of his order is Annexure P. 1 attached with the writ petition. During her life time Smt. Parbati is alleged to have made a will bequeathing her property in favour of Mahan Singh, her son -in -law, i.e. husband of Sidh Kaur and Pritpal Singh her grandson, i.e. son of Mahan Singh. On the death of Smt. Parbati mutation was sanctioned in favour of legatees on 4th of April, 1967 a copy of the mutation is Annexure P. 2 attached with the petition. It may be pointed out here that Nidh Kaur died before partition of the country and one Balbir Singh claimed himself to be adopted son of Sidh Kaur but the Collector, Agranan, Ambala, vide his judgment dated 27th November, 1969, copy Annexure P. 3, came to the conclusion that since the property was bequeathed by the deceased in favour of Mahan Singh and Pritpal Singh and since the property had not devolved by inheritance, therefore, under the provisions of section 10A of the Act, the legatees could not get the benefit of this section and thus he treating Sidh Kaur to be only heir and holding that Balbir Singh is not proved to be the adopted son of Nidh Kaur, held that the property had to be assessed as one unit. The Collector also levied a penalty whereby 10 standard acres land was declared surplus by way of penalty. The copy of order of the Collector is Annexure P 3. On appeal the Commissioner vide his order dated March 3, 1970, copy of which is Annexure P. 5, set aside the penalty levied by the Collector and remanded the case to the Collector for determining the surplus area. The orders of the Collector and the Commissioner were assailed in revision before the learned Financial Commissioner. The learned Financial Commissioner, vide his order copy of which is Annexure P. 7, held that since Mahan Singh and Pritpal Singh got the property by way of will and, therefore, they were not entitled to the benefit of section 10 -A of the Act The learned Financial Commissioner accepted the contention of the petitioners that they should he given an opportunity before the Collector to produce copy of the judgment of the High Court to show that Balbir Singh was adopted son of Smt. Nidh Kaur. The above mentioned orders of the Commissioner and the learned Financial Commissioner are sought to be impugned in civil writ petition No. 1583 of 1974. As regards civil writ petitions Nos. 3895, 4242, 4254, 4264, 4290, 4348, 4349, 4350, 4372 and 4375 of 1976 it is contended by Shri S.L. Ahluwalia that the petitioners in these petitions are either vendees of the land from Smt. Parbati or they are the purchasers of the land from the vendees of Smt. Parbati. All the petitioners in this batch of the writ petitions claimed that in view of the policy decision of the Haryana Government as contained in Notification No. 5726 -AR -(LA) -76/28819 dated 15th September, 1976, they are entitled to the benefit of the said policy decision as they being transferees from Smt. Parbati and before the April, 1966 they being the small landowners falling within the policy decision referred to above and thus they are entitled to continue to own and possess the land which they purchased. In all here writ petitions no orders has been passed by any authority below against the interest of the petitioners. It is, however, claimed by the petitioners that since they are being dispossessed, therefore, they had approached this Court.
(3.) MR . Sachdeva, learned counsel for Mahan Singh and Pritpal Singh, in C. W. P. No. 1583 of 1974, has raised three contentions in support to the petition, which are as follows: - - (i) That even though the property devolved on Mahan Singh, and Pritpal Singh by way of will still this should be treated as inheritance and the benefit of section 10 A(b) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 should be made available to the petitioners. (ii) That the learned Financial Commissioner has gone wrong in limiting the right of the petitioners to prove the adoption by observing that the petitioners will be able to give proof only by way of judgments of the High Court which might have been passed earthier in this regard. (iii) That since the surplus area is yet to the declared, therefore the case shall have now to be decided by the Collector in accordance with the provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1972 (amended upto date);