JUDGMENT K.S. Garewal, J. - This as well as three other connected writ petitions (C.W.P. Nos. 6393 to 6395 of 1999) raise identical issues concerning a long standing dispute between a landowner and his tenants. It may be appropriate to give the basic facts of the case before adverting to the orders which have been passed by the various courts below and which have been challenged by the petitioners. 2. One Pat Ram was a displaced person, who was allotted a considerable area of land in Sakta Khera, Tehsil Sirsa, District Hissar (now Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa) in 1949. At the time of Pat Rams death on February 7, 1966 he was survived by his six sons namely Sohan Lal (61), Brij Lal (58), Hazari Lal (55) Ami Lal (52), Dhonkal Ram (49) and Shankar Lal (46). During his life time Pat Ram was found to hold 63.32 standard acres as surplus area under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, vide orders dated July, 26, 1961 passed by the Collector, Surplus area. Pat Ram had filed an appeal before the Commissioner, but it was not pressed and was dismissed on July 24, 1962. The main argument of the petitioners, who are Pat Rams sons and successors-in-interest, is that after Pat Rams death his sons shall derive the benefit of Section 10-A(b) of the Act, which would lead to the devolution of Pat Rams entire holding by inheritance upon his six sons on the date of his death which was much prior to the coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 on December 23, 1972. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioners the surplus area case of Pat Ram would stand "abated" because his share was transferred by inheritance to his sons and the surplus area of the sons would be required to be determined under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (Punjab Law) before it was determined under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (Haryana Law). On the other hand the respondents submit that irrespective of his death Pat Rams holding would be required to be determined under the Punjab Law and it was indeed so determined vide order dated July 26, 1961, which was final qua Pat Ram and no benefit would accrue to his estate on account of his death. 4. On the other hand the respondents submit that irrespective of his death Pat Rams holding would be required to be determined under the Punjab Law and it was indeed so determined vide order dated July 26, 1961, which was final qua Pat Ram and no benefit would accrue to his estate on account of his death. 4. It is in the above factual backdrop that the legal position and the pleadings of the parties deserve to be considered. According to the petitioners they had filed a suit for declaration before the Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Sirsa on June 16, 1958 seeking a declaration to the effect that they were the owners and proprietors in equal shares of 390 bighas 1 biswa of land comprising specific khasra numbers and on that basis a decree had been passed on June 18, 1958 (Annexure P-1), leading to mutation being recorded on December 29, 1958 (Annexure P-2). It may be mentioned that during arguments this point did not come up and consequently it does not have a bearing on the issues raised in these petitions. 5. Two bothers, Bishan Singh and Dalip Singh, sons of Gurdit Singh, filed two separate appeals against the order declaring 63.32 standard acres as surplus area with Pat Ram, urging that they were in cultivating possession of certain khasra number under Pat Ram in April 1953 and continued as such, which gave them a right to be heard before the Collector when Pat Rams surplus area was declared. Commissioners order dated January 19, 1966 (Annexure P-3) directed that the Collector, Surplus Area, should reconsider the case after hearing Bishan Singh and Dalip Singh and consequently the case was remanded to the Collector for reassessment of Pat Rams surplus area. 6. After remand, Special Collector, Haryana Camp at Hissar, passed order dated July 15, 1969 (Annexure P-4) wherein it was recorded that Pat Ram had died living behind six sons, the situation had changed and fresh proceedings against Pat Rams heirs were to be taken except "to the extent the area declared surplus has been utilised." 7. There is nothing on record whatsoever to establish if the proceedings under the Punjab Law were ever concluded either against the late Pat Ram or against his six sons. There is nothing on record whatsoever to establish if the proceedings under the Punjab Law were ever concluded either against the late Pat Ram or against his six sons. Nevertheless, orders dated July 20, August 9, 1977 and April 27, 1995 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dabwali, have been annexed to the petitions as Annexures P-5 to P-10 and these relate to the assessment of surplus area of Sohan Lal, Hazari Lal, Brij Lal, Ami Lal, Dhonkal Ram and Shankar Lal. Under each of these orders assessment of surplus area was done under the Haryana Law and each of the landowners was found to be holding land within his permissible area and it was decided that none of them held any surplus area under the Haryana Law, but there was a rider to the effect that "if any land out of the present land is found to be surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 that will have no effect upon this order and that surplus land will be utilised according to law." (perhaps what was meant was that declaration of surplus shall not be subject to the order - a clear case of meaning getting twisted during translation). 8. It seems that on the basis of the above orders, the petitioners claimed themselves to be small land owners and filed application in Form K-1 for ejectment of the tenants including their successors-in-interest by starting proceedings before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade Dabwali, who heard the tenants and came to the conclusion that the applicants were small landowners and were entitled to get the tenants ejected under Section 9 of the Punjab Law since they required the land for self-cultivation. Bishan Singh, the successors-in-interest of the respondents, had already been allotted 80 kanals of land from the surplus pool and this was more than the land in question. Therefore, the tenants were not entitled to allotment of more land from the surplus pool. An order of ejectment was passed, which is Annexure P-12. Appeal was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated January 22, 1992 (Annexure P13). The revision was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Hissar, vide order dated October 16, 1992 (Annexure P-14). 9. The above ejectment gave rise to four revisions, which were disposed of by the same order by the Financial Commissioner on September 12, 1997 (Annexure P-15). Appeal was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated January 22, 1992 (Annexure P13). The revision was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Hissar, vide order dated October 16, 1992 (Annexure P-14). 9. The above ejectment gave rise to four revisions, which were disposed of by the same order by the Financial Commissioner on September 12, 1997 (Annexure P-15). This order was challenged by the present petitioners by filing four writ petitions viz. C.W.P. Nos. 15538 to 15541 of 1997, but before these petitions could be decided, the petitioners filed a review application before the Financial Commissioner, which led to the writ petitions being dismissed as premature. Thereafter, the Financial Commissioner passed order dated March 10, 1999 (Annexure P-19) who apart from making slight amendments in the operative part of the earlier order, dismissed the review application. 10. At this stage it would be helpful to tabulate the brief details of the four RORs, which have led to the four writ petitions. S. No. RORNo. Subject Remarks CWP No. 1. 381 Challenge to the ejectment orders passed against the petitioners under Section 9(1)(i) of the Punjab Law The ejectment orders were set aside and it was directed that the applications be decided after the surplus area case of Pat Ram and his sons has been decided under the Punjab Law 6392 of 1999 2. 389 Challenge to the orders dated July 20, 1977 and August 9, 1997 holding that the landowners were small landowners under the Haryana Law Orders were set aside 6394 of 1999 3. 528 Challenge to the order dated July 15, 1969 Order was set aside 6393 of 1999 4. 596 Challenge by Dalip Singh to the surplus area case orders dated July 20, 1977 and August 9, 1997 holding that the landowners were small land owners under the Haryana Law The orders were set aside 6395 of 1999 11. Pat Ram could not have in his wildest dreams imagined that on migrating to India, after getting land in lieu of land left behind is what is now Pakistan, he and his sons would face such gamut of litigation. The original allotment was made in 1949. The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 came into force on April 15, 1953. Pat Ram died in February 1966. The situation at that stage was 63.32 standard acres of land stood declared as surplus. The original allotment was made in 1949. The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 came into force on April 15, 1953. Pat Ram died in February 1966. The situation at that stage was 63.32 standard acres of land stood declared as surplus. If this situation had not been interfered with by the Special Collector through his order dated July 15, 1969 and the matter completely undone, then the tenants would have had no grievance and Pat Rams case would have been consigned to the record for all times to come. It was because the tenants namely Bishan Singh and Dalip Singh had not been heard when the surplus area was declared that the matter was reopened and took a completely different course. 12. The sole question to be considered is whether the Financial Commissioner had the power and the jurisdiction to direct that the Collector should decide the surplus area cases of Pat Ram and his sons afresh and then determine if they were big landowners either in their individual capacity or upon inheritance and thereafter decide the case under the Haryana Law and the ejectment applications thereafter. 13. The answer to the above legal query is obviously in the affirmative. It is now settled law that if a landowner dies before his surplus area has been determined, his heirs or legal representatives are not treated as separate land holders for ceiling purposes and are not entitled to retain more than what the landowner could have retained (refer to State of Maharashtra v. Annapurnabai and others, AIR 1985 S.C. 1403 and State of U.P. v. The Civil Judge, Nainital and others, AIR 1987 S.C. 16). Learned Counsel for the petitioners does not accept the above statement of law laid down by the Apex Court because these principles were laid down in relation to agrarian laws of Maharashtra in the first case and U.P. in the second. Therefore, these have no applicability to the case in hand, which was under the Punjab Law. He has further reiterated the provisions of Section 10-A of the Punjab Law, wherein it is provided that no transfer of land comprised in surplus area shall affect the utilisation thereof for the purpose of settlement of tenants ejected or to be ejected and the land acquired by a heir by inheritance shall be excluded. He has further reiterated the provisions of Section 10-A of the Punjab Law, wherein it is provided that no transfer of land comprised in surplus area shall affect the utilisation thereof for the purpose of settlement of tenants ejected or to be ejected and the land acquired by a heir by inheritance shall be excluded. This provision does not apply to the facts of the present case because this case does not relate to utilisation of surplus area for the settlement of tenants. Indeed there have been no such proceedings initiated at the instance of the tenants. It may be reiterated that the tenants in this case are not seeking re-settlement on the surplus area of either Pat Ram or his sons, but are merely seeking to defend their tenancy on the ground that neither Pat Ram nor his sons were small landowners. Therefore, the provision of Section 10-A is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. There is no other provision in the Punjab Law, which may be relied upon to reinforce the petitioners principal argument that Pat Rams death brought an end to the surplus area proceedings because his estate was inherited by his sons and each of them was a small landowner entitled to evict the tenants. Whether or not Pat Rams sons were big or small landowners is required to be redetermined just as the Financial Commissioner has directed. First of all it has to be seen by the Collector whether Pat Rams surplus area had been correctly determined. Pat Rams death shall have no effect on these proceedings. It is only after his permissible area has been fixed that the individual cases of his sons are to be taken up and their respective surplus areas, if any taken out by including the land owned by them and the land inherited by them. In this situation, the learned Financial Commissioner had rightly decided to quash the ejectment proceedings under Section 9(1)(i) of the Punjab Law and also the Collectors order dated July 15, 1969, whereby Pat Rams case was closed and direction was given to start proceedings against Pat Rams heirs. This order was also contrary to the order of remand dated January 18, 1966, whereunder the matter had been remanded only for a fresh decision after hearing the tenants. This order was also contrary to the order of remand dated January 18, 1966, whereunder the matter had been remanded only for a fresh decision after hearing the tenants. Furthermore, the determination of the cases of some of the sons of Pat Ram the Collector on July 20, August 9, 1977 was also illegal as their respective cases under the Punjab Law had not been previously determined. Resultantly, the orders of the Financial Commissioner passed in ROR Nos. 381, 398 and 528 of 1992-93 were perfectly legal and just and are hereby upheld. 14. As regards the order in ROR No. 506, petitioners counsel submitted that this petition had been filed by Dalip Singh, who had already made a statement before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade on December 6, 1967 (Annexure P-11), wherein he had stated that the applicants were small landowners and he had no objection to his ejectment from the land in question and he did not want any compensation. It is obvious that on the basis of this statement Dalip Singh could have been ejected. Dalip Singh did not file any appeal or revision against this order and indeed that ejectment order has not been placed on record. Those proceedings have not been specifically referred to by the Financial Commissioner and yet ROR No. 596 was allowed and the case was remanded. Even before this court there is no material, barring Dalip Singhs statement, to conclude one way or the other with regard to the legality of Dalip Singhs ejectment, if any. That matter should be treated as closed and should not now be reopened after the passage of such a long time. Resultantly, the writ petition Nos. 6392, 6303 and 6394 of 1999 are dismissed. However, C.W.P. No. 6395 of 1999 is allowed and a direction regarding remand of Dalip Singhs case is hereby set aside. No costs. Petition dismissed.