A.S. Bains, J. - (1.) LORIND Chand petitioner, who was the original land -owner, had sold to respondents. Nos. 3 to 12 land the measuring 24 Standard Acres II Units vide registered sale and deed Hated 4th May, 1957, for a sum Rs. 1300/ -. Subsequently, the Collector, Rohtak (respondent No. 2) vide his order dated 13th June, 1960 declared this land as surplus with the petitioners. Dissatisfied by this order of the Collector, respondents Nos. 3 to 12 referred an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, who vide his order dated 8th August, 1961, remanded the case to the Collector for fresh decision. After the remand, the Collector vide his order dated 18th May 1963, maintained his previous order with one addition that since the vendees respondents 3 to 12 were holding less than 10 S.A. each therefore, no tenant could not be settled on that land. Respondents 3 to 12 again filled an appeal before the Commissioner and the Commissioner vide his order dated 1st January, 1964 again remanded the case to the Collector for fresh decision. The Collector vide his order dated 30th June, 1965 (copy Annexure 'A' attached with the petition) again maintained his previous order dated 13th June, 1960. On vendees -respondents 3 to 12's appeal, the Commissioner vide his order dated 16th February, 1966 (ropy Annexure B attached with the petition), set aside the order of the Collector dated 30th June, 1965 holding that the land in dispute formed part of the permissible area to be left with the petitioner Dissatisfied by this order of the Commissioner, the landlord -petitioner went in revision, which was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 6th April, 1967 (copy Annexure 'C' with the writ petitioner). Hence this petition by the landlord.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the writ petition the landlord petitioner died on 19th August, 1968 and his heirs and legal representatives were impleaded as petitioners vide order passed in Civil Misc. No. 1530 of 1969. He left behind his widow, one son and three daughters. No return on behalf of the respondent State has been filed. However, return has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 3 to 12.
(3.) MR . Sarin, states that the land which was declared surplus was not utilized till the death of the landlord, the original land -owner, in view of the stay order granted by the Motion Bench. He says that in fact the land in dispute has not so far been utilized and it is still in the hands of the legal heirs of the original land -owner. It is well settled that if the surplus land is not utilized and in the meantime the landlord dies, then the order declaring the land as surplus, cannot be implemented and has to be set aided, because then the surplus land is to be determined qua the heirs of the deceased landlord. In the present case, one son, a widow and three daughters are left as the heirs of the deceased landlord. This assertion is not contested by the respondents and so each one of the legal heirs is entitled to succeed in equal shares and thus they are now small land owners Similar matter came up before a Division Bench of this Court, reported as Ram Singh v. Inderjit and others, 1969 P.L.R. 560, and also in Sarmukh Singh and others v. Financial Commissioner Punjab and others, 1971 P.L.J 391. In the latter case it was held by Sarkaria, J. (as his Lordship then was) as under: - - Reading of section 10 -A(b) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act with section 10 -B, it is clear that if the landowner, in whose hands an area is declared surplus, dies and the land is inherited before utilisation thereof and the heirs are small landowners, the order declaring the area surplus in the hands of the deceased becomes inoperative. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed, but there will be no order as to costs.;