ORDER R.K. Anand, IAS, Financial Commissioner.—This is a revision petition filed against the order dated 29-9-1982 of the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division, who dismissed the appeal and upheld the orders dated 10-7-1981 and 31-12-1981 of the Collector, Sub-Division, Una, Briefly, the facts of the case are that Shri Amar Singh, who owned 2080 Kanals 13 Marlas of land on the appointed day, was required to file a return in form 2. Accordingly, the learned Collector, Una Sub-Division, heard the petitioners, who are the sons of the deceased Shri Amar Singh and vide his order dated 10-7-1981, came to the conclusion that the land owned by the deceased Amar Singh, would attract the provisions of the H.P. Ceiling on Land I Holdings Act. He further held that as the property of the deceased was within the purview of the Act ibid, the legal heirs would be entitled to retain land measuring 633 Kanals in addition to Gair Mumkin land, if any. Since the details and description of the land held by Shri Amar Singh, deceased, on the appointed day had not been worked out and the classification of the land was also not indicated on the file, he directed that the details should be prepared and Patwari summoned for a statement in his court. 3. Consequently, the statement of the Patwari was recorded on 20-8-1981 and 1-10-1931 regarding the land holding of Shri Amar Singh and his sons, According to the Patwaris statement, Shri Amar Singh held land measuring 2079 Kanals and 12 Marias on 24-1-1971. It also came to light that out of this area, land measuring 101.3 Kanals had already been sold before 24-1-1971 but the mutations of the sale deeds were attested subsequently. On the basis I of this evidence the Collector concluded that since the transfer of the land supposed to have been sold had taken place before the appointed day and the land was not in the ownership of Shri Amar Singh, it should be excluded from his land holding. Besides, 112 Kanals and 5 Marias of land was classified as Gair Mumkin and the landowner was entitled to retain it in accordance with the provisions of the Act ibid. Besides, 112 Kanals and 5 Marias of land was classified as Gair Mumkin and the landowner was entitled to retain it in accordance with the provisions of the Act ibid. After taking into account his entitlement and also the land sold by him, the learned Collector, Una Sub-Division found that land measuring 1233 Kanals and 4 Marias was surplus and would vest with the State Government as surplus land in terms of the relevant provisions of the H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act Feeling aggrieved by this order of the Collector, Una Sub-Division, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner who dismissed the same. The instant revision petition arises out of this order of the learned Divisional Commissioner. 4. I have heard the petitioners counsel, Shri O.P. Verma as well as the A. P.P., Shri Satish Thakur on behalf of the State and also perused the court record. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners who are the sons of late Shri Amar Singh are his legal heirs and were brought on record as his legal heirs in 1981 when the impugned order was passed According to him the share of the legal heirs has to be computed and excluded from the land proposed to be declared as surplus in accordance with the provisions of the H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. In support of his contention, he cited LLT-1962 Page-27, wherein it was held in case Smt. Ganga Devi v. State of Punjab that "land held by a landowner cannot be declared as surplus after his death. On his death it is the area held by his heirs that has to be considered for assessment of surplus and not the original holding". He also placed reliance on the case reported in ILR-1978, Himachal Series, page 225. The learned A.P.P. who appeared on behalf of the State, on the other hand, stated that according to the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Act ibid, no person was entitled to hold land in excess of the permissible area on or after the appointed day and the order of the Collector, Una Sub-Division was quita fair and justified in the sense that bona fide transfer of land resulting from its sale had been excluded from the surplus area and, therefore, the petitioners had no case. He also stressed the fact that the land holding of Shri Amar Singh on 24-1-1971, the appointed day, was to be considered for assessing whether or not it was surplus in terms of the provisions of H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. He referred to the relevant provisions of the Act which state that the land holding on that date was to be taken into consideration for determining the entitlement of the landowner and reckening the surplus area, after excluding the land which had been transferred as a result of a bona fide sale. The learned A.P.P. also cited ILR 1976 Himachal Series page 453, Rajinder Singh v. Union of India, decided by the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. 5. The perusal of the Act as well as the case law cited by the learned A.P.P., on the subject, makes it clear that the entitlement is to be reckoned and determined with reference to the "appointed day", a fixed point in time which for purposes of H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act is 24-1-1971. On that day, the land was held by the deceased, Shri Amar Singh and not by his legal heirs as has appeared in evidence before the Collector, Una Sub-Division. There is no documentary evidence to show that the land had been divided amongst the sons of the deceased or was held by them independently as legal heirs. Since the intention of the legislature for the enactment of the Ceiling law seems to be to acquire the surplus land and for assessment of surplus land, the relevant date which has been prescribed is 24-1-1971, the land holding of Shri Amar Singh would have to be taken into consideration with reference to that date. Since on that date the land was held by the deceased, Shri Amar Singh, the surplus land has to be determined on the basis of his entitlement and taking into account the bona fide transfer resulting from sale transactions in accordance with the provisions of the Act Applying the yardstick for assessment it appears that the Collector, Una Sub-Division, has determined the entitlement in the light of the provisions contained in the Act and rightly allowed land measuring 633 Kanals to the landowner. 6. 6. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners and discussed in LLT-1962 page-27 does not seem to be strictly applicable as the facts in the instant revision petition are not only different, the provisions of the two Acts are also not similar. The other citation of the case Gram Panchayat Khunyara v State of H.P. contained in ILR-1978, Himachal Series Page 225 is also not applicable as it is about the validity of certain provisions of the H.P. Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act. The instant revision, on the other hand, is about the entitlement of a land-owner with regard to his land-holding and assessment of surplus land under the H.P., Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, That being the position, the order of the learned Divisional Commissioner upholding the order of Collector, Una Sub-Division and dismissing the appeal seems to be justified and in accordance with the provisions of the H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. In view of the above, the revision is dismissed. Petition dismissed.