R.N. Mittal, J. - (1.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the petitioner was owner of land in west Pakistan. On migration to India, he was allotted 39 81 standard Acres in village Hizzrawan Khrurd, District Hissar, His uncle Ladha Ram was also a land owner in West Pakistan. He migrated to India and died here on August 28, 1948. In iieu of his land, the petitioner was allotted 31. 82 standard Acres of land in India. Thus the petitioner's total holding came to 71 - -63 Standard Acres. Proceedings under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were started against him by the Authorities. The Financial Commissioner in his order dated December 20, 1966, held that the petitioner cannot be treated as an allottee of the area got by him from his uncle and, therefore, he was not entitled to retain 50 Standard Acres from the total land of 71 -63 Standard Acres. He has filed this writ petition against the above said order of the Financial Commissioner.
(2.) THE sole question that arises now for determination is as to whether the, petitioner would be deemed to be an allottee with regard to land measuring 31. 82 Standard Acres which he got from his uncle and is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of sub clause (b) of proviso (if) to sub section (3) of section 2 of the Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the death of Ladha Ram, the petitioner was allotted the aforesaid land of his uncle and, therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of the said clause. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner got that land by inheritance from Ladha Ram and therefore, he was net entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid sub -clause. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. It is specifically mentioned in paragraph 10 (a) of the return that an area of 31. 82 Standard Acres was allotted in the name of Ladha Ram and the petitioner inherited it from him. Relevant portion of sub -section reads as follows : - - (3) 'Permissible area' in relation to a landowner or a tenant, means thirty standard acres and where such thirty standard acres exceeds sixty acres, such sixty acres; Provided that : - - (i)... (ii) for displaced person : - - (a) ... ... ... (b) who has, been allotted land in excess of thirty standard acres, but less than fifty standard acres, the permissible area shall be equal to his allotted area. (c)... ... Explanation. For the purposes of determining the permissible area of displaced person, the provisions of proviso (ii) shall not apply to the heirs and successors of the displaced persons to which land is allotted. From a reading of the sub -clause and explanation it is evident that the sub clause will apply in the case of a displaced person who had been allotted land in his own name. It does not apply to the heirs and successors of the displaced person. In the present cast, the petitioner inherited 31.82 Standard Acres from his uncle. Therefore, he will not be entitled to get benefit of the above clause qua this land. In the aforesaid view I am fortified by the observations of a Full Bench of this Court in Munshi Ram v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, (1967) 69 P.R.L. 913 wherein it was held that where land was actually allotted to an heir of a displaced person who had died after putting in his claim for the land left By biro in West Pakistan, the heir cannot be said to be a displaced allottee and cannot take advantage of the above sub -clause
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is consequently dismissed. The parties through their counsel are directed to appeal before the Collector Agrarian, Fatebad, on March 30, 1979.;