Mehar Singh, J. - (1.) ON November 25, 1959, the Collector (Surplus), Nuh. in Gurgaon District, appellant 3, declared 6 standard acres and 8 standard units of land as surplus with Nathi out of his holding of 36 standard acres and 8 standard units, bringing his holding within the permissible limits of 30 standard acres. On July 14, 1965, Nathi died leaving him surviving his widow Kela Devi, respondent 1, and his mother Mando, respondent 2, both heirs to his estate.
(2.) THE respondents made an application to appellant 3 under sections 10 -A(b) and 10 -B of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (Punjab Act 10 of 1953), that on the death of Nathi they had inherited his estate as his heirs, with the result that the holding in the hands of each, divided into two half's, came to be less than the permissible area of 30 standard acres and, the land declared surplus in the hands of Nathi deceased not Laving been utilised, in their hands the holdings were below the permissible limit, thus leaving no surplus area utilizable under section 10 -A(a) of the Act. The application was dismissed by appellant 3 on March 13, 1967, on the ground that the area declared surplus from the holding of Nathi deceased had been allotted to various tenants and thus could not be excluded from the surplus pool. An appeal by the respondents was dismissed by the Commissioner of Ambala, appellant 2, on January 30, 1968, on the ground that an order of allotment of surplus land should be considered as utilization of such land, obviously under clause (a) of section 10 -A of the Act. A revision application by the respondents to the Financial Commissioner, appellant 1, met the same fate on May 8, 1968, on the same ground. It was after that that the respondents filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking that the orders of the appellants be quashed and appropriate writ, order or direction be issued that the respondents are small land -owners with whom there is no surplus land In the return on behalf of the appellants it was said that 'the petitioners (respondents) had no locus standi when the surplus area of the deceased land owner was declared and allotted to the eligible tenants as detailed below. Since the land in dispute was allotted to the tenants during the lifetime of the deceased land -owner except 8 Kanals in village Ghelab, allotted on April 19, 1965, the petitioners (respondents) cannot claim the benefit of the saving provided in section 10 -A(b)'of the Act. Then follows the list of fourteen pieces of land left by Nathi deceased allotted to various tenants detailed in that list. In regard to eight such pieces of land it is clearly stated that not only allotments had been made to tenants, but possessions of the pieces of land had also been delivered to them before the death of Nathi deceased on July 14, 1965. In regard to the remaining six pieces of land although allotments had been made to various tenants shown in the list, but possessions of the same had not been delivered to those tenants by the time Nathi deceased died. There was thus for consideration before the learned Single Judge only one question, whether any part of the land declared surplus in the hands of Nathi deceased had not been utilized on the date of his death on July 14, 1965? The learned Judge did not accept the approach of the revenue authorities that mere allotment of surplus area to one or more tenants meant its utilization having regard to sections 10 -A and 10 -B of the Act. He was of the opinion that in view of the provisions of those sections and rules 20 -A to 20 -D of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956, utilization of surplus land is not complete until possession is delivered to the tenant or tenants to whom the land has been allotted - In this approach, having regard to the list filed with the return of the appellants, the learned Judge quashed the orders of the appellants in so far as land allotted to Roshan, Lahore and Mam Raj, tenants, was concerned. Otherwise the petition of the respondents was dismissed The land allotted to Roshan, Lahore and Mam Raj, tenants, is the land of which possession had not been delivered to those tenants before the date of the death of Nathi deceased.
(3.) HERE the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is the same as before the learned Single Judge that after declaration of surplus area of a land -holder when such surplus area has been allotted to a tenant or tenants, that amounts to utilization of such area within the meaning and scope of sections 10 A an 1 10 -B of the Act. The reply on the side of the respondents by their learned counsel is also the same as before the learned Judge that not until possession has been delivered is the utilization complete, because if the tenant does not take possession of the land allotted his allotment is liable to cancellation under rule 20 D of the 1956 Rules. I consider that the approach of the learned Single Judge in repelling the argument on the side of the appellants and accepting that on the side of the respondents is correct and unexceptional.;