Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. By filing this writ petition, petitioners have prayed that the orders, Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-4 be quashed and order Annexure P-3 be modified. 2. It is an admitted fact that Ajmer Singh was a big landowner and under the provisions of Punjab, Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (in short, the old Act), proceedings were initiated to assess as to whether he owns any surplus land or not. His surplus area case was decided on 7.11.1969 by the Collector and land to the tune of 128 kanals was declared surplus. Even as per para 18 of written statement, filed in this writ petition, land declared surplus" was not utilised and had not vested in the State till 15.12.1976. It is also an admitted fact that after enforcement of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (in short, the new Act), surplus area case of the big landowner i.e. Ajmer Singh was decided afresh and it was found, as a matter of fact, (vide order dated 15.12.1976) that area with family of the big landowner was not in excess, rather it was less than the permissible limit of land, which could have been retained by the owner. Petitioners purchased 96 kanals of land for Rs. 30,000/- on 24.6.1974. It is also proved on record that when surplus area case of landowner Ajmer Singh was taken up and decided again vide order, Annexure P-3, petitioners were not made a party. Petitioners came to know about these proceedings, against their predecessor-in-interest i.e. big landowner, only in 1975, when they received notice Under Section 9(1) of the new Act, directing them to deliver possession of land measuring 24 kanals out of 96 kanals of land purchased by them. In response to the notice, they filed objections, by stating that 24 kanals of land purchased by them, in view of fresh determination of surplus case of the big landowner/their predecessor-in-interest would fall within the permissible limit of land to be retained by the big landowner and could not have been declared surplus. Matter was fixed before the Collector on 11.11.1975, one of the petitioners, who was pursuing the matter, due to illness, was admitted in some hospital and could not appear on the date. In view of that, objection application was dismissed in default. Matter was fixed before the Collector on 11.11.1975, one of the petitioners, who was pursuing the matter, due to illness, was admitted in some hospital and could not appear on the date. In view of that, objection application was dismissed in default. Petitioners moved application for restoration of their application on 19.11.1975, by stating that their absence on the date fixed was not intentional and was due to some unavoidable circumstances. Certificate issued by the doctor was also placed on record, wherein it was mentioned that Gurmail Singh, petitioner remained hospitalised from 8.11.1975 to 17.11.1975. Collector, vide order Annexure P-1, did not give them any opportunity to adduce evidence to prove their case, rather their application for restoration of objection application, was dismissed and it was further held that since they have purchased land after the appointed day under the new Act, as such, they were not entitled to claim any benefit. Petitioners appeal was also dismissed on account of technicalities only, vide order dated 26.9.1977 (Annexure P-2). They also failed before respondent No. 1, when their revision petition was dismissed on 1.12.1983 (Annexure P-4). 3. Before this Court, by referring to order, Annexure P-3, counsel contended that even as per assessment by the authorities, area with the big landowner was less than his entitlement under the new Act. Counsel further stated that if value of the area purchased by the petitioners is added in holding of the landowner, even then it will remain within the permissible limit. Counsel further submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioners to prove that they had actually purchased area out of the permissible area of landowner under the old Act and on account of that land sold by the landowner, was required to be added in his permissible area and surplus area if any, was required to be deducted from land retained by the big landowner. By stating above mentioned facts, counsel stated that the order, under the challenge, be quashed. 4. Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by counsel, appearing for the respondent-State. He, by referring to orders, Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-4, stated that fault lies with the petitioners as they have failed to put up appearance before the competent authority on the date fixed, as such, their objection petition was rightly dismissed. 4. Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by counsel, appearing for the respondent-State. He, by referring to orders, Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-4, stated that fault lies with the petitioners as they have failed to put up appearance before the competent authority on the date fixed, as such, their objection petition was rightly dismissed. He further stated that since they had moved application for restoration of their objection petition beyond period of limitation, the same was also rightly rejected. Counsel further stated that out of 96 Kanals of landpurchased by the petitioners, only 24 kanals was declared surplus, as they had purchased the same out of the surplus area already declared under the old Act. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. Vide impugned order, respondents are taking away a valuable right of the petitioners, to retain 24 kanals of land. Under these circumstances, the authorities werte required to give full opportunity to them, so that they can prove that they had purchased land out of permissible area of the landlord under the old Act. For their failure to appear on a particular date fixed, this Court is of the view that valid explanation was given by them, however, the same was dismissed merely on the basis of technicalities, as such, to that extent, respondents were not justified. It is also apparent from the records that big landowner/predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, under the provisions of the new Act, was entitled to retain for himself and for his other family members first quality of land to the extent of 14 hectares. At the time of assessment, it was found that he was having total land to the extent of 11.32.68 hectares. Above mentioned facts clearly indicates that big landowner was still entitled to retain about 3 hectares of firstly quality land. Admittedly, land was purchased by the petitioners after the appointed date. Till that time, even land declared surplus, earlier under the old Act, had not been utilised. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that if opportunity was given to the petitioners, they would have in position to show to the authorities that the land purchased by them would fall within the permissible limit of 14 hectares, which their predecessor-in-interest was entitled to retain under the new Act. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that if opportunity was given to the petitioners, they would have in position to show to the authorities that the land purchased by them would fall within the permissible limit of 14 hectares, which their predecessor-in-interest was entitled to retain under the new Act. Furthermore, no finding has come on record that as to what was the khasra numbers of land, which were declared surplus under the Act and whether the petitioners have purchased the land out of that area. Furthermore, nothing has come on record to show as to what was the effect of non-utilisation of land, which was declared surplus under the old Act, when the new Act came into enforcement. All these facts were required to be looked into by the authorities before passing adverse orders against the petitioners. Impugned orders were passed in a very casual manner, without affording any opportunity to lead evidence to the petitioners, to prove their claim. Their application was dismissed, simply on the basis of technicalities and surmises. This Court is of the view that the approach adopted by the authorities below was not justified. 6. Accordingly, in view of facts mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed.and impugned order Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-4 are set aside, Collector, Ferozepur (under the new Act), is directed to decide objection petition of the petitioners, afresh, by affording them opportunity to prove as to whether they have purchased land out of permissible area of the big landowner under the old Act? If so, its effect? Further that even if they had purchased the land out of surplus area declared under the old Act, which was not utilised, whether they were entitled to retain this land, on account of entitlement of big landowner, to retain land, as was permissible under the new Act? Parties are directed to appear before Collector, Ferozepur on 16.9.2005.