JUDGMENT Harbans Lal, J.:- This petition has been moved by Baldev Singh, Bakhshish Singh, Karnail Singh and Bhag Singh sons of Bogha Singh under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned orders, Annexures P-1 to P-3 on the grounds as delineated in the petition. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that Bogha Singh son of Mohna Singh, resident of Ramgarh, Tehsil Muktsar was a big land owner. His land measuring 6 standard acres 12 units was declared as surplus by the Collector, Ferozepur, on 4.1.1966. Aggrieved with this order, he preferred an appeal to the Commissioner, Jalandhar division, who set aside the order and remanded the case with a direction to scrutinize the matter and after giving an opportunity of being heard to all the concerned, decide the matter afresh with a further direction that the redeemed area under mortgage should be counted in the holding of the landowner and Form ‘F’ be issued. The appellant was directed by the learned Commissioner to appear before the Collector on 30.1.1968, but he did not appear before the Collector on the aforesaid date. After that, summons were issued for 24.2.1968. The same were received with a report that the landowner had gone to Bathinda. Again summons were issued for 12.3.1968 and 8.4.1968. Then he was summoned for 25.4.1968. The summons were received back with the report that the landowner has refused to accept the same. Ultimately, he was proceeded against ex-parte. The learned Collector in the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 23.5.1968 observed that the landowner had got 30 standard acres 7 units on 15.4.1953. Later on, he redeemed an area of 6 standard acres 15 units and his total holdings became 37 standard acres 6 units. After consolidation operations, the holdings increased to 38 standard acres 6 units. Ultimately, the land measuring 122 K 3 M was declared as surplus. The petitioners carried appeal, Annexure P-2 to the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. He dismissed the same. The Financial Commissioner-respondent vide Annexure P-3 also dismissed the revision. 3. After consolidation operations, the holdings increased to 38 standard acres 6 units. Ultimately, the land measuring 122 K 3 M was declared as surplus. The petitioners carried appeal, Annexure P-2 to the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. He dismissed the same. The Financial Commissioner-respondent vide Annexure P-3 also dismissed the revision. 3. The respondents, in their joint written statement, have inter-alia pleaded that it was never brought to the notice of the Commissioner during the pendency of the appeal that Bogha Singh landowner had died on 2.12.1975 and, consequently, the Commissioner dismissed the same as being time barred as well as on merits. The land was inherited by the petitioner as well as their brother Balbir Singh through mutation no.1491 and 1562 respectively. The surplus area vested in State Government through mutation no.1437 dated 19.7.1974 and the same was allotted to the tenants. The possession of the same was also delivered to the respondents No.4 and 5 vide Rapat Report of the Patwari bearing no.167 and 168 dated 19.1.1979. The inheritance qua the land of Bogha Singh deceased was decided on 15.10.1976 and 24.7.1979 vide mutations no. 1491 and 1562 respectively in favour of the petitioners as well as their another brother Balbir Singh. The surplus area was vested in the State Government through mutation no.1437 dated 19.7.1974 and the same was allotted to the tenants. Therefore, the petitioners (heirs of big landowner) cannot be given the benefit as provided under Section 11(7) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 as the surplus area had vested in the State Government under Section 8 of the said Act, and this petition may be dismissed with costs. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the impugned orders with due care and caution. 5. Mr. R.C. Setia, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, has strenuously urged that Bogha Singh expired on 2.12.1975 and the surplus area in his hands was determined under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act vide Annexure P-1 and on his death, the area having not been utilized by the State was inherited by the petitioners, who became small landowners. 6. To tide over this submission, Mr. 6. To tide over this submission, Mr. NDS Mann, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appearing on behalf of the State, maintained that the land has been allotted to the tenants and possession of the same has also been delivered to them vide Rapat Report No. 167 and 168 dated 19.1.1979 and thus obviously, the surplus stands utilized. 7. I have well considered the rival contentions. 8. As emanates from Annexure P-1, the deceased Bogha Singh did not put in appearance before the Collector on 30.1.1968 as directed by the Commissioner nor in pursuance of the summons issued to him from time to time. Eventually, the summons issued for 25.4.1968 were returned with the endorsement that he has refused to receive the same and, sequelly, he was ordered to be proceeded against exparte. The Commissioner in his order dated 2.5 .1979 observed that " the decision of the Collector in the absence of landowner was fully justified and Form 'F’ was ordered to be issued. The deceased could not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong as he did not obey the orders of the Collector to put in his appearance before the concerned authority.” As is borne out from Annexure P-3, it was argued before the Financial Commissioner on behalf of the petitioners that Bogha Singh breathed his last on 2.12.1975 and by such time, the land was not utilized and the same was in their possession and that being so, they being the heirs of Bogha Singh, were entitled to the benefit of fragmentation. The learned Financial Commissioner has rightly observed that Section 28 of the Land Reforms Act, 1972 is very wide in its sweep. By one stroke, it does away with the old Punjab and Pepsu Laws in so far as these are inconsistent with it. It makes no provision for benefit of fragmentation to the heirs of big landowners, who had died and, therefore, whether such benefit has been given under the old Acts or not, there is no scope for doing so now, harsh though the impact may be. Section 11(7) of the new Act emphatically states that notwithstanding the death of the landowner, his surplus area is to be taken into possession by the State and utilized as prescribed. Section 11(7) of the new Act emphatically states that notwithstanding the death of the landowner, his surplus area is to be taken into possession by the State and utilized as prescribed. In the present case, Bogha Singh had died after the commencement of this Act and his heirs cannot claim such benefit and there is no justification to interfere with the order of the Collector confirmed by the Commissioner in appeal. 9. In the instant case, Bogha Singh dragged, the proceedings till 2.12.1975, i.e. the date of his death. As per Annexure P-1, the area was declared surplus on 23.5.1968. The area which stood mortgaged was got redeemed by the big landowner, and the same was directed to be counted in the holding of the landowner, who as per Annexure P-l did not appear and ultimately, the Collector Agrarian while exercising powers under Section 5-B of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, ordered issuance of Form ‘F’ The fact that Bogha Singh passed away on 2.12.1975 was not brought to the notice of the Commissioner during the pendency of the appeal. The land stands utilized vide the above mentioned Reports in the Roznamcha. That being so, the petitioners cannot be given the benefit as provided under Section 11(7)of the Land Reforms Act, 1972. In view of the above discussion, no case is made out for quashing the impugned orders by issuing the desired writ. Sequelly, this petition is dismissed. ------------------