G.R. Majithia, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil writ Petitions No. 2650, 5282 of 1981, 4164, 4948 and 4950 of 1982, 1416 and 4949 of 1983. The pleadings in all these petitions follow substantially the same pattern. With the consent of the parties' counsel, C.W. P. No. 1416 of 1983, was treated as the main writ petition. Therefore, for convenience, I will refer to the pleadings in C. W. P. No. 1416 of 1983, and whatever I say in regard to this writ petition would apply to all other writ petitions.
(2.) THE precise question which arises for determination is; whether a land owner whose land has been declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short the 'Punjab Act') and who has not yet been divested of the ownership of the surplus area before the enforcement of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short the 'Haryana Act') is entitled to select the permissible area for his family and for each of his adult son ? The facts as unfold in this petition are: Jhanda Singh predecessor -in -interest of the Petitioners was a big land owner. The Collector Ambala, vide order dated June 8. 1960, found that the land owner held land in excess of the permissible area and declared 21 -11/4 standard acres of land as surplus under the Punjab Act The land declared was never utilised under Section 10 -A of the Punjab Act. The Haryana Act came into force on December 23, 1972. Some land out of the surplus area is alleged to have been allotted to Respondents No. 3 to 10 and an entry to this effect was made in Rapat Roznamcha No. 325 dated April 23. 1982. The Petitioners maintain that the entry in the Rapat Roznamcha is only paper transaction. The allottees were never delivered possession. The possession throughout remained with the Petitioner's father who expired on January 7, 1984, and thereafter with them.
(3.) THE private Respondents filed written statement and strongly refuted the allegations made in the petition and pleaded that the possession was delivered to them under the orders of the prescribed authority. Respondents No. 1 and 2 also filed an affidavit and controverted the plea of the Petitioners that the land has not been utilised. They also urged that allotment in favour of Respondents No. 3 to 5 and 7 to 10 was made in December, 1977 and actual possession was handed over to Respondents No. 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 on December 11, 1979 and to Respondents No. 3 and 10 on April 23, 1982.;