JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. :- This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Maha Rawal Khewaji Trust represented through Shri Umrao Singh Dhaliwal, Trustee and Chief Executive of the Trust for issuance of appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside the order of the Collector, Shimla dated 28.4.1986 (Annexure. PD), order of the Commissioner, Shimla Division dated 5th November, 1990 (Annexure PG) and the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 11.9.1991 (Annexure PK). 2. It is the case of the petitioner that late His Highness Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur K.C.S.I., Faridkot (Punjab) was the ruler of erstwhile State of Faridkot. He died during the pendency of the proceedings which were initiated by the Collector, Land Ceiling, Tehsil and District Shimla-respondent No. 3 under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, .1972 (hereinafter referred to the Act) in respect of the land comprising Khasra Nos. 37/2 min, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 43/1, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65/2 min, 66, 68/1, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75 and 76 measuring 280 bighas situate in the revenue Estate Mashobra, Tehsil and District Shimla to be known as Kenilworth which has developed upon the petitioner-trust as per the Will of the deceased Sir Harinder Singh Brar. The family of deceased Sir Harinder Singh Brar consisted of himself, his wife Rani Narinder Kaur who died on 19.4.1986, Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur, daughter, Raj Kumari Deepinder Kaur, daughter, late Tika Harmohinder Singh, son of Raj Kumari Maheepinder Kaur, daughter. 3. The act has been enacted by the State of Himachal Pradesh to consolidate and amend the law relating to Ceiling on Land Holdings in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The Act came into force on and with effect from 28.7.1973. The definition and expression of the words are contained in Section 2. For determining the holding of the land owner, the appointed day is prescribed under Section 3(b) as 24.1.1971. According to the petitioner, on the day when the Act came into force as well as on the appointed day, the family of the land owner consisted of himself, his wife and Tika Harmohinder Singh, his adult son who was alive on the appointed day. According to the petitioner, on the day when the Act came into force as well as on the appointed day, the family of the land owner consisted of himself, his wife and Tika Harmohinder Singh, his adult son who was alive on the appointed day. The holding of the land owner was within the permissible limits of area as contained in Section 4 of the Act, therefore, returned was filed as there was no surplus land as permissible area of the land owner and his family was to consist of two units i.e. one unit for himself and wife and separate unit for his adult son Tika Harmohinder Singh. The petitioner has contended that Collector, Land Ceiling, Shimla "respondent No. 3 herein took up proceedings under Section 9 of the Act when draft statement in Form No. (C-II) dated 30.11.1984 was issued on the basis of some information obtained by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals)-respondent No. 2 herein stating therein that the petitioner may file return to retain permissible area and the land exempted under the Act as well as the land liable to be declared as surplus. The statement prepared by respondent No. 3 was served upon the House-Agent of the petitioner on 4.1.1985. Against the said statement, objections (Annexure PA) had been raised by the late land owner and reply to the objection was also filed on behalf of the State of H.P.-respondent No. 1 herein by Tehsildar, Shimla. Respondent No. 3 declared an area to the extent of 87.8 bighas comprising Khasra Nos. 37/1, 50, 52, 65/1, 68/2 and 77 out of the total holding of the land owner as surplus. The original land owner preferred an appeal under Section 20 of the Act before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla-respondent No. 4 against the order (Annexure PD) passed by respondent No. 3. During the course of the proceedings before respondent No. 4, Sir Harinder Singh Brar original owner had expired on 16.10.1989 and on the application filed on behalf of the petitioner-trust, the present petitioner Sh.Umrao Singh Dhaliwal trustee and Chief Executive of the Trust has been ordered to be substituted in place of deceased land owner. The appeal was dismissed for default by respondent No. 1 and application for restoration of the appeal was also dismissed. The appeal was dismissed for default by respondent No. 1 and application for restoration of the appeal was also dismissed. The petitioner-trust took up the matter in revision before respondent No. 2 who remanded the case back to respondent No. 4 for decision on merits in accordance with law. Respondent No. 4 by means of order dated 5.11.1990 (Annexure PG) has rejected the appeal thereby upholding the order of respondent No. 3. The petitioner-trust filed revision petition before respondent No. 2 against the order of respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 2 has also rejected the revision petition upholding the orders of both the authorities below. 4. Now, the petitioner-trust has challenged the correctness and validity of the orders of the revenue authorities by way of this writ petition on various grounds 5. The writ petition was admitted by this Court on 28.9.1992. The Division Bench also directed that the petitioner would not be dispossessed from the land in question during the pendency of the writ petition. 6. In joint reply filed on behalf of respondents, Collector, Shimla has stated that the landed property situated at village Mashobra, Tehsil and District Shimla measuring 280 bighas was owned by late Raja Sahib Harinder Singh son of Rana Bajinder Singh of Faridkot. The residential buildings, Abadi, paths and roads have not been included for the purpose of declaration of surplus area and only such buildings which fall within the definition of land and are covered under the Act have been taken into account for the purpose of declaration of surplus area. The respondent has stated that the information was collected and thereafter statement in Form No. C-V as required under Rule 9 of the H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to the Rules) was prepared and served upon the land owner through his Agent Shri Jagdish Singh at Mashobra on 4.1.1985. The Collector, on 27.2.1985 on consideration of the objections filed by the land owner left an area to the extent of 161-2 bighas to the land owner as selected area and the land measuring 31-2 big has being Gair Mumkin Road, path, Abadi and building has no been taken into account for the calculation of surplus area. The rest of the land measuring 87-8 bighas as covered under the definition of land has been ordered to be declared as surplus. The rest of the land measuring 87-8 bighas as covered under the definition of land has been ordered to be declared as surplus. The respondents have justified the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 7. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner in opposition to the reply of the respondents, it is submitted that the entire land including the land covered by the buildings, appurtenant buildings, roads, paths and lawns was included in 218 bighas of land owned by Raja Sir Harinder Singh known as Kenilworth and other buildings popularly known as Fairdkot house at Mashobra had been taken into-account by the respondents for determining the surplus area and out of the whole estate only 31.2 bighas of land being Gair Mumkin covered under the buildings, roads and paths etc. has not been taken into account for calculation of surplus area. Since the total holdings of Raja Sir Harinder Singh as on the appointed day was admittedly less than two units, there was neither any question nor any occasion to prepare the draft statement as no return was required to be filed by the land owner under Section 8. The death of the adult son ten years after the appointed day could not under law lead to diminution of the permissible area of the land owner. The averments of the respondents that after the death of unmarried adult son, the land owner has automatically inherited the land are specifically denied. The petitioner has also stated that no opportunity has been given by respondent No. 3 to the land owner to substantiate his objections submitted by him vide Annexure PA. The Divisional Commissioner has not applied his mind judiciously nor has taken into consideration the submission made on behalf of the land owner as the Appellate Authority has not directed itself to re-determine the Gair Mumkin area under the building, roads and paths and appurtenant lands to exclude them from the area falling within the definition of the land and the Appellate Authority has also not determined the nature and right in land described as private forest to find out whether or not the same could be treated as private forest to be included in the area as land. The petitioner has contended that the provision of Section 17 of the Act are not applicable in the present case and the authorities below have exceeded their jurisdiction in applying the said provision. 8. I have heard Mr. Arun Palli, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General for the respondents. Mr. Palli has contended that the principal question arises for consideration in the present case is whether Harmohinder Singh son of the original owner was entitled to separate unit on the appointed day .i.e. 24.11.1971 as contemplated under Section 4(4) of the Act1. After the death of Harinder Singh who died issueless, the original owner would automatically get the benefit of the unit of his son and despite conceding the fact that Harmohinder Singh was entitled to get separate unit being adult son of the original owner, as observed by the authorities below in the impugned orders, the said benefit has not been given to the original owner by the Collector nor by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority. Thus, the orders impugned in this writ petition deserve to be set aside being arbitrary, unreasonable and against the provision of the statute. The learned Counsel also contended that the title and ownership of the land of one unit held by Harmohinder Singh never stood vested in him and the father would get the benefit of the land of his adult son who was entitled to separate unit under the Act after the death of Harmohinder Singh on 13.10.1981. The learned Counsel next contended that the provisions of Section 17 are not attracted in the present case as the original owner has not inherited the land of his son by means of sale, transfer, gift or will etc. as contemplated under the said Section. The learned Counsel then contended that in the alternative if for the sake of arguments Section 17 will apply in the present case, the matter of Harmohinder Singh who died on 13.10.1981, would inherit the unit of the son under the Hindu Succession Act as she had died on 19.4.1986 and the authorities below have failed to consider this aspect of the matter. He has also submitted that the orders of the authorities below are also bad on the ground that no determination of surplus land has been done by the authorities in their orders on the appointed day nor under Section 17 of the Act" of this Section is made applicable to the case of the petitioner. The authorities have also ignored the fact that 51 bighas of land entered as Gair Mumkin in the Jamabandi has to be exempted and the Appellate Authority has not considered the written argument submitted before it nor any opportunity has been given to the original owner to redress his grievances. The authorities nave also wrongly included some portion of the land of the owner as private forest in the definition of land, therefore, the orders of the revenue authorities impugned in this writ petition have been passed on surmises, conjectures and based on no evidence. 9. per contra, the learned Advocate General contended that no doubt Raja Harinder Singh Brar the owner of the property was entitled to one unit for himself and his wife and one unit to Harmohinder Singh son on the appointed day. The separate unit of the property held by Harmohinder Singh had reverted back to his parents on his death on 13.10.1981 and as a consequence thereof Raja Harinder Singh Brar had retained the land in excess to the permissible area and, therefore the authorities below have rightly appointed the provision of Section 17 of the Act1 declaring the surplus being held by the owner in excess to the permissible area. He has sought to support the orders of the authorities below as passed in conformity with and in consonance with the provision of Sections 4 and 17 of the Act. 10. I have given my thoughtful and anxious consideration to the respective contentions of the learned Counsel for- the parties. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to make reference to some statutory provisions relevant for the purpose of resolving the controversy. The definitions and expressions used in the Act are to be found in Section 3 of that Act. Section 3(m) defines "permissible area" to mean the extent of land specified in Section 4 of the Act. The definitions and expressions used in the Act are to be found in Section 3 of that Act. Section 3(m) defines "permissible area" to mean the extent of land specified in Section 4 of the Act. Clause (q) of Section 3 defines "separate unit" to mean an adult son or in case of his death, his widow and children, if any, "surplus area" as per clause (r) means the area in excess of the permissible area. Chapter II of the Act contains Ceiling on Land Holdings, Acquisition and Disposal of Surplus Area. Section 4 deals with permissible area of land owner or a tenant or a mortgagee with possession or partly in one capacity or partly in another of a person or a family consisting of husband, wife and upto three minor children which can be retained by the said person. Sub-section (4) of Section 4 which is relevant and material for the purpose of resolving the controversy is quoted hereunder: "(4) Every adult son or daughter of a landowner shall be treated as a separate unit and he shall be entitled to the land upto the extent permissible to a family under sub-sections (1) and (2) subject to the condition that the aggregate land of the family and that of the separate units put together shall not exceed twice the area permissible under the said sub-section : Provided that where the separate unit owns any land, the same shall be taken into account for calculating the permissible area for that unit. 11. Section 8 deals with selection of permissible area. The said section reads as under:- "(1) Every person, who on the appointed day or at any time thereafter holds the land exceeding the permissible area shall furnish to the Collector particulars of all his lands and that of the separate unit within a prescribed period and in the prescribed form and manner and stating therein the selection of land not exceeding in the aggregate the permissible area which he desires to retain Provided that such person shall stated in the return any transfer or other disposition of land made by him after the appointed day. (2) If the whole or a part of the land selected under sub-section (1) is under tenants, the landowner shall not be entitled to eject the tenants therefrom except on the grounds given, in the tenancy laws for the time being in force in the State of H.P. Explanation I. - Where the person is a member of the family, he shall include in his declaration particulars of land held by him and also of land, if any, held by other members of the family. Explanation II. - In calculating the extent of land owned or held by a person, the share of such person in undivided family, registered forming co-operative society or a company shall be taken into account. (3) In making a selection of his permissible area under subsection (1), the landowner may also select land for a separate unit: Provided that the land selected for the separate unit, after adding the land owned on or after the appointed day by such unit, shall not exceed the permissible area. 12. Section 11 deals with the vesting of surplus area in the State Government on the date on which possession thereof is taken by or on behalf of the State Government. 12. Section 11 deals with the vesting of surplus area in the State Government on the date on which possession thereof is taken by or on behalf of the State Government. Section 17 deals with future acquisition of land by inheritance or otherwise in excess of permissible area or increase in such area as a result of operation of this Act which reads as under: (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 15, if after the commencement of this Act, any person, whether as landowner or tenant, acquires by inheritance or by bequest or gift fro a person to whom he is an heir any land, any person has acquired by transfer, exchange, lease, agreement or settlement any land, or it, after such commencement, any person acquires in any other manner any land, which, with or without the lands already owned or held by him, exceeds in the aggregate the permissible area or any person whose land exceeds the permissible area as a result of the operation of any provision of this Act, then he shall, within the period prescribed, furnish to the Collector, a return in the prescribed form and manner giving the particulars of all lands and selecting the land not exceeding in the aggregate the permissible area which he desires to retain, and if the land of such person is situate in more than one patwari circle, he shall also furnish a declaration required by Section 9. (2) If he fails to furnish the return and select his land within the prescribed period, then the Collector may in respect of him obtain the information required to be shown in the return through such agency as he may deem fit and select the land for him in the-manner specified in sub-section (1) of Section 8. (3) If such person fails to furnish the declaration, the provisions of Section 9 shall apply. (4) The excess land of such person shall be at the disposal of the State Government for utilization as surplus area under Section 15 or for such other purpose as the State Government may by notification direct. Explanation. (3) If such person fails to furnish the declaration, the provisions of Section 9 shall apply. (4) The excess land of such person shall be at the disposal of the State Government for utilization as surplus area under Section 15 or for such other purpose as the State Government may by notification direct. Explanation. - In the case of family, the return may be furnished by any adult member, of the family and in the case of the sole minor by his guardian : Provided that the Collector shall, before determining the surplus area, give to all the members of the family an opportunity of being heard. 13. On reading the aforementioned statutory provisions it is clear that every adult son of all land owner is treated as a separate unit and he shall be entitled to the land upto the extent of permissible area. The purpose of enacting sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Act is to give right to the land owner as defined in clause (g) or a person as defined in clause (n) of Section 3 to select one unit of the land for himself and his family consisting of husband, wife and three minors children to retain the permissible area of the land to the extent mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 4 and one unit to his adult son who is not living separately from the land owner or a person. Language of Section 4 of the Act is clear and unambiguous to read that the right is given to the land owner or a person and not to an adult son. In this Section, the permissible area of the land owner or a person is determined. An adult son can be independent owner of the land in his own independent right and he could also be subjected to the provision of the Act. Section 6 of the Act1 says that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, custom, usage or agreement, no person shall be entitled to hold whether as a landowner or a tenant or a mortgagee with possession or partly in one capacity and partly in another the land within Jhe State of HP. exceeding the permissible area on or after the appointed day. exceeding the permissible area on or after the appointed day. Section 8(1) lays down that every person, who on the appointed day or at any time thereafter holds the land exceeding the permissible area shall furnish to the Collector particulars of all his lands and that of the separate unit within a prescribed period and in the prescribed form and manner and stating therein the selection of land not exceeding in the aggregate the permissible area which he desired to retain. In making the selection of permissible area under sub-section (1) the landowner may also select the land for separate unit under sub-section (3) of Section 8. 14. Proviso says that the land selected for the separate unit, after adding the land owned on or after the appointed day by such unit, shall not exceed the permissible area. 15. On combined reading of the provisions of Sections 6 and 8 of the Act, it becomes clear that it is the land owner or a person who has the right to choose the permissible area of the land for his family and one separate unit for his adult son of the land not exceeding in the aggregate the permissible area and the rest of the land has to be declared by him as surplus area, as defined in clause (r) of Section 3 of the Act. Section 6 entitles a person to hold whether as a land owner or a tenant or a mortgagee with possession or partly in one capacity and partly in another, the land within the-State of HP. not exceeding the permissible area on or after the appointed day notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, custom, usage or agreement. 16. Full Bench of this Court while dealing with the provision of the Act1 in Rajkumar Bajindra Singh v. The Union of India and others, AIR 1976 Himachal Pradesh 82 has said as under: "When sub-section (4) speaks of treating an adult son as a separate unit, it intends that in the process of determining the permissible area available to the land-owner out of the land holding belonging to such landholder, the extent of the permissible area will be the area prescribed for the landholder under sub-sections (1) and (2) enlarged by an equally extensive area by reason of the existence of each adult son. The entire permissible area represents the land which the landholder can retain out of the related land holding. The additional area is added on the fiction that so much more land out of the land holding is required as a provision in the hands of the landholder in respect of an adult son or sons. The entitlement of the adult son is merely in aid of this fiction. Thus it is clear that no right to a share is created thereby in favour of the son in the landholding of the landholder, and hence no question can arise of any discrimination between a son and a daughter. It is possible that a landholder with an adult son becomes entitled, by virtue of sub-section (4), to a larger permissible area than a landholder with no adult son but with an adult daughter. But even there, it cannot be said that the land holder suffers discrimination on the ground of the landholders sex. Further, if an adult son alone is mentioned in sub-section (4) as a factor determining the permissible area of the landholder. It is reiterated that the presence of an adult son is relevant only for the purpose of determining the extent of the permissible area available to the land holder it does not affect the rights of the son and daughter on succession. 17. The scheme of the Act seems to determine the ceiling area of each land owner or person (including a family) with reference to the appointed day. The police of the Act appears to be that on and after the appointed day no land owner or person in the State should be permitted to hold any land in excess of the ceiling area as determined under the Act and that ceiling area would be that which is determined as on the appointed day. Therefore, Raja Harinder Singh Brar had rightly retained one separate unit of the land to his son Harmohinder Singh on the appointed day i.e. 24th day of January, 1971. The said date, therefore, became immutable fixed point from which the ceiling of land and the areas surplus or permissible thereunder had to be worked out. Therefore, Raja Harinder Singh Brar had rightly retained one separate unit of the land to his son Harmohinder Singh on the appointed day i.e. 24th day of January, 1971. The said date, therefore, became immutable fixed point from which the ceiling of land and the areas surplus or permissible thereunder had to be worked out. It is not in dispute that on the appointed day Raja Harinder Singh Brar had retained two units of the land and no surplus land was left with him which could vest with the State Government under the Act. Thus, a close reading of the provision of Section. 4 shows that under no circumstance, on the appointed day, a person, including his adult son and minor children, could hold more than twice the permissible area (see) Smt. Yadunandan Kumari v. State of H.P. & Ors., 1993(2) S.L.J. 1271. A Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Nagender Singh Chauhan v. The State of Haryana and another, 1979 P.L.J. 310 has dealt with various provisions of Haryana ceiling on Land Holdings Act (26 of 1972) and on consideration of the relevant provisions, the Court has held as under :- "From the provisions of the Act, it is apparent that the concept of a separate unit is not to much a right of the adult son himself to hold the land, but in essence is the right of the land-owning father to hold extra land for each one of his adult sons living with him. It would indeed be an anomalous and uncalled for situation that whereas for the determination of his own permissible area the date immutably fixed by law should be 24th January, 1971, but for the purposes of separate unit under Section 9(2), the corresponding provision for his adult sons, the criteria should be of a different date fluctuating whimsically for well-nigh five years thereafter." 18. The surplus area of Raja Harinder Singh Brar and his son Harmohinder Singh has to be seen on the appointed day1. Harmohinder Singh admittedly died on 13.10.1981 issueless. The surplus area of Raja Harinder Singh Brar and his son Harmohinder Singh has to be seen on the appointed day1. Harmohinder Singh admittedly died on 13.10.1981 issueless. The title and ownership of the unit of Harmohinder Singh never stood vested in him and the extent of the land of the unit of Harmohinder Singh has no developed upon Raja Harminder Singh Brar on the death of his son as he had only selected one separate unit for his son at the time of appointed day1 and the subsequent inheritance will not close the right of the owner. The argument of the learned Advocate General that every addition or reduction in the number of the members of a family requires re -determination of the ceiling area of such a family would mean an almost perpetual fixation and re-fixation in the ceiling area by the Revenue authorities under Section 17 of the Act cannot be accepted. Raja Harminder Singh Brar had not acquired any title or ownership rights in the land of a separate unit of his son Harmohtnder Singh after his death by inheritance or by bequest or gift as heir. Section 17 will apply if any person after 24.1.1971 acquired any land by inheritance or bequest or gift from a person to whom he is an heir and he will furnish to the Collector, a return in a prescribed form and manner giving the particulars of all lands and selecting the land not exceeding in the aggregate the permissible area which he desires to retain. Thus, Raja Harminder Singh Brar owner of the land would not retain the aggregate land of the family and that of the separate unit put together exceeding twice the area permissible under sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Act. 19. What follows from the above discussions is that the orders of the revenue authorities below are not sustainable and tenable on the point of applicability of Section 17 of the the Act in the present case. The writ petition deserves to be allowed on this sole ground that it is accordingly allowed. The other above noticed contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner do not require .further examination and consideration as the petition is being decided on the principal issue of applicability of the provision of Section 17of the Act. 20. The writ petition deserves to be allowed on this sole ground that it is accordingly allowed. The other above noticed contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner do not require .further examination and consideration as the petition is being decided on the principal issue of applicability of the provision of Section 17of the Act. 20. No other point is urged before this Court by the learned Counsel for the parties. 21. For the reasons afore -stated, this writ petition is allowed. The order of the Collector, Shimla Division dated 28.4.1986 (Annexure PO), order of the Appellate Authority dated 5th November, 1990 (Annexure PG) and order of the Financial Commissioner dated 11.9.1991 (Annexure PK) dated 11.9.1991 are quashed and set aside. However, there will be no orders as to costs. Stay order, if any, shall stand vacated. -