V.K Bali, J. — Conflict of interests of tenants for allotment of land, be it under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act or the Utilisation Scheme under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and Rules framed thereunder, on the one hand and the vendees of big landowner for retention of land purchased by them irrespective of it having been declared surplus under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, on the other hand, have brought them to this Court in the present Letters Patent Appeal after a marathon legal battle running over a period of two decades. Before, however, the crucial points that have been advanced by learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective contentions are noticed, it shall be useful to briefly trace the admitted and proved facts culminating into present appeal.

2. Smt. Rukmani Devi, a displaced person from the areas now forming part of West Pakistan, in lieu of land abandoned by her there, was allotted 6 standard acres and 28 units of land in district Sirsa. Her husband, Suraj Bhan, who was land owner in his own right, died in 1955. Rukmani Devi succeeded to the estate left by her husband which, insofar as present case is concerned, was agricultural land measuring 38 standard acres and 70 units equivalent to 124.56 ordinary acres in village Khiraika. By virtue of a sale deed executed and registered in 1958, she sold 28 bigas 2 biswas of land to her daughter - Saraswati Devi, mutation with regard to which was sanctioned on January 17, 1960. In 1958 she selected her permissible area and duly filled in Form-E prescribed under the Rules framed by virtue of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. Saraswati Devi, daughter of the original land owner Rukmani Devi, in turn sold the land purchased by her to respondents herein, at whose instance writ petition was filed in this Court resulting into impugned judgment.

3. The Collector (Surplus Area) commenced proceedings with a view to determine the land surplus in the hands of Rukmani Devi in the year 1961 and vide orders dated November 30, 1961 expressed his opinion that since Rukmani Devi was entitled to 50 standard acre being a displaced person and had in her ownership a total land measuring 44 standard acres 98 units, no area in her hands could be declared surplus. However, after obtaining necessary permissison from the Commissioner, he reviewed the aforesaid order dated November 30, 1961 and declared 13 standard acres and 58 units as surplus in the hands of land owner. It was held that Rukmani Devi was entitled to 30 standard acres of land and not 50 standard acres. Meanwhile, on the basis of earlier order of 1961, vide which Rukmani Devi was held to be small land owner, an eviction petition was filed by her against Ladhu Ram tenant which was allowed in 1962. Ladhu Ram, being aggrieved of the orders aforesaid carried an appeal before the Collector which was allowed by holding that he (Ladhu Ram) was an old tenant and was not associated in the proceedings of declaration of surplus area cuminating into order dated November 30, 1961 as also that Rukmani Devi was entitled to 60 ordinary acres and not 96 ordinary acres of land. Rukmani Devi agitated this matter before the Commissioner, who vide orders dated March 21, 1967, set aside the orders passed by the Collector and held that Ladhu Ram had since already been ejected and the view of the Collector that Rukmani Devi was entitled to 60 ordinary acres only, was not correct.

4. A new chapter was added to the on going controversy when Amar Chand and Des Raj appellants herein were allotted a part of land which was declared surplus in the hands of Rukmani Devi vide orders dated March 10, 1964. It is at this stage for the first time that respondents became aware that the land purchase by them from Saraswati Devi, daughter of original land owner, had been declared surplus vide order dated March 10, 1964 reviewing earlier order dated November 30, 1961 and they thus, filed an appeal against the order of allotment to appellants - Amar Chand and Des Raj before Collector which was accepted on December 20, 1972 on the main plea raised by them that they being both, necessary and proper party having inherent interest in the land, subject matter or dispute, were not heard while deciding the surplus area case of original land owner - Rukmani Devi. It is admitted position that against this order, no appeal or revision was filed by any of the parties. That being so, respondents applied for restoration of the land which, as referred to above, had meanwhile been allotted to Amar Chand and Des Raj which was allowed vide order dated March 16, 1973. Appeal against this order brought about at the instance of allottees failed before the Commissioner on June 15, 1973. However, on further revision before the Financial Commissioner, the impugned orders were set aside on July 30, 1974 necessitating respondent-petitioners to file a review of order dated July 30, 1974 which was also declined on November 22, 1974. This left the respondents with no choice but for to challenge the orders of Financial Commissioner dated November 22, 1974 through Civil Writ Petition No. 6521 of 1974 which was allowed and in which ultimately a direction was given to the Financial Commissioner to re-decide the matter. It requires to be mentioned that vide order dated July 30, 1974 the Financial Commissioner had declined review primarily on the ground that there was no provision for review. On remand, however, the respondents met with the same fate. This time, however, the review was declined on the grounds that Smt. Rukmani Devi had not mentioned in the Selection Form-E submitted by her in 1958 that she sold the land in dispute to her daughter Smt. Sarswati Devi and no reference had been made to Smt. Saraswati Devi in the order passed by the Collector determining the surplus area of Rukmani Devi, as also that in the revenue record the petitioners were not mentioned as interested party and that transferee of a transferee was not entitled to hearing before determination of surplus area of the original big landowner. This order was once again agitated in writ petition filed by respondents which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge. It is, thus, against the order of learned Single Judge setting aside the order of the Financial Commissioner referred to above, that the present Letters Patent Appeals, one by tenants-Amar Chand and Des Raj and the other by the State of Haryana, have been filed. It requires to be mentioned that Amar Chand and Des Raj were allotted a further piece of land measuring 55 kanals 13 marlas in the year 1976 under the Utilisation Scheme framed by virtue of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and Rules framed thereunder.

5. Mr. P.C Mehta, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of appellants has endeavoured us to take a view different than the one taken by the learned Single Judge on the same very grounds on which the Financial Commissioner upheld the contentions of the tenants. It is argued that once the land, subject matter of sale in favour of respondent-vendees was not disclosed by Rukmani Devi in the Selection Form-E submitted by her in the year 1958, by which time she had admittedly sold the land to her daughter - Saraswati Devi, the authorities dealing with the matter were perfectly justified in holding that the said land was owned by Rukmani Devi and if computation of land was made on the basis of her holding including the land, subject matter of sale to respondents, the order declaring 13 standard acres and 58 units of land as surplus in her hands while reviewing order dated November 30, 1961, could not be questioned. It is also argued that respondents, who were transferees from Saraswati Devi, daughter of big landowner, were not entitled to be heard in the proceedings culminating into order determining surplus area in the hands of big land owner. However, insofar as finding of Financial Commissioner that petitioners were not mentioned in the revenue record and for that reason they were not interested party and were not entitled to be heard, no arguments have been raised presumably on account of the fact that firm finding of fact based on records has been recorded by the learned Single Judge that when the Collector started proceedings for determination of surplus area of Rukmani Devi, her general attorney - Ram Bhagat appeared before the Circle Revenue Officer and made a statement that Smt. Rukmani Devi had sold 28 Bighas 2 biswas of land to her daughter Saraswati Devi and that the Circle Revenue Officer in his report dated October 13, 1961, made to the Collector mentioned this transfer of 28 bighas 2 biswas of land by Smt. Rukmani Devi to her daughter. The Collector had also recorded the statement of Ram Bhagat in which he reiterated his stand about the sale of 28 bighas 2 biswas of land by Rukmani Devi to her daughter. The factum of transfer of the land by Rukmani Devi to Saraswati Devi and further transfer by Saraswati Devi to petitioners was mentioned in Form-D prepared by the village Patwari which was attested by the Field Kanungo and the Circle Revenue Officer and names of petitioners were mentioned in Form-D.

6. Mr. Jagdev Sharma, learned Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, appearing in L.P.A No. 460 of 1984 on behalf of State of Haryana has simply adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. P.C Mehta, Sr. Advocate and which has been noticed above.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case minutely, we, however, find no substance in any of the points noted above. Based on Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules which, in turn, only recognises the principle of natural justice of hearing an affected party, by a string of judicial pronouncements of this Court, it has been held that a notice has to be issued to persons whose names are mentioned in Form-D prepared by the Patwari or whose names may be shown in the revenue record. The learned Single Judge has relied on such judgments inclusive of two Full Bench decisions in Balwant Singh Chopra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1971 PLJ, 315 and Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors., 1974 PLJ 456. The mere fact that respondents were transferees from a transferee of the big land owner, in our considered view, shall not make the slightest difference as Rule 6 talks of notice to any person who may be recorded in the revenue record as owner or tenant of the land in dispute. As referred to above, it is by now admitted position that the respondents were recorded to be owners in the revenue records. Added to it is a fact that in the very proceedings in which the Collector declared 13 standard acres and 58 units as surplus in the hands of Rukmani Devi, there was a clear mention of sale of 28 bighas 2 biswas of land to Smt. Saraswati Devi inasmuch as attorney of big land owner had made statement to that effect and reiterated the same at a later stage. That apart, when the respondents derived knowledge that the entire land, subject matter of sale to them, had since been declared surplus, they agitated the matter before the Commissioner, who accepted their plea and the case was remanded to the Collector for fresh decision according to law on the sole ground that they were not given any hearing and that they were affected persons. It is admitted position that no appeal was filed against the aforesaid order. Insofar as non-mentioning of land sold by Rukmani Devi in selection Form-E submitted by her in 1958 is concerned, suffice it to say that in the context of the facts that are available, it was not of much consequence as at all ends it was admitted that the sale was made in 1958 and that there was over-whelming evidence on records to show that such sale was actually made by Rukmani Devi to her daughter Saraswati Devi.

8. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the appellants, who are old tenants were also entitled to be heard in the proceedings with regard to declaration of surplus area of big land owner Rukmani Devi as they could well prove that they were old tenants and the area under their possession should be declared as tenants' permissible area as also that the sale made by the big land owner was not bonafide sale or was not permissible under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. Learned counsel, however, for the obvious reason that there is no material on records from which points noticed above can be determined by this Court, suggests that such issues, if raised before the Collector, should be determined. The operative part of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in our considered view, permits the appellants to raise the points noticed above. It shall be seen that while setting aside the orders impugned in the writ petition, learned Single Judge has remanded the matter to the Collector to decide it afresh after hearing the petitioneis and other persons interested in accordance with law. Obviously, the appellants are interested persons and they have every right to be heard in the matter. The learned Single Judge also observed that the Collector shall try to safeguard the interest of respondents 8 to 10, who are appellants herein, to the extent it is possible and that they shall not be dispossessed till the decision of the Collector.

9. Mr. M.S Jain, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of contesting respondents, contends that the sale by Rukmani Devi to her daughter Saraswati Devi is before the cut off date mentioned in the rules and is, thus, saved as also that the tenants have no right to ask for allotment of land which stood sold to the respondents prior to the cut off date on the basis that they are old tenants and the area under their possession should be held to be tenants' permissible area. As mentioned above, there is complete paucity of evidence on the contentions raised for the first time in this appeal by the contesting parties. The entire issue was determined on the main ground as to whether the respondent-vendees were entitled to be heard in surplus proceedings culminating into declaration of 13 standard acres and 58 units as surplus in the hands of Rukmani Devi. That being the position, as mentioned above, these points, if raised by the tenants, would be determined by the Collector. Mr. Jain has also pleaded for dispossession of appellants on the ground that respondents-vendees have been deprived of possession of land purchased by them of every long time. He contends that the appeal is coming for hearing after a period of ten years and if the matter was decided earlier, the appellants, in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, would have been evicted since long. That being so, there was no equity in favour of appellants and, therefore, they should be ordered to vacate the land. We are, however, not inclined to order dispossession pf the appellants merely because for no fault of appellants this appeal has remained pending in this Court for a decade. This is, however, a fit case where direction requires to be issued and is accordingly issued to the Collector to dispose of the matter within six months from the date parties appear before him. Possession of appellants is protected only upto such time, as ordered by the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, if the tenants lose the matter, it would be in the discretion of the Appellate or revisional authority to grant them stay or not in accordance with law.

10. The appeal is found to be devoid of any merit and is, accordingly dismissed. Judgment of learned Single Judge dated December 22, 1983 is up held. In the circumstances of the case, parties are, how-ever, left to bear their own costs. Parties are directed to appear before the Collector or prescribed Authority, as the case may be, Sirsa, on 28th Nov., 1994, who as mentioned above, would expedite the matter and dispose of the case within six months from the date the parties appear before him.

This order shall dispose of Letters Patent Appeal No. 460 of 1984 as well, as both these appeals have arisen from the same judgment and involve common questions of law and facts.