JUDGMENT Rajive Bhalla, J. (Oral):- The petitioners pray for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the orders, dated 20.1.1983 (Annexure P-2) and 6.8.1985 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh respectively. 2. The petitioners are the successors-in-interest of Smt. Shiv Kori, a big landowner as prescribed under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short herein after referred to as “the Punjab Act”). The surplus area case of Smt. Shiv Kori was decided on 19.12.1959 and an area measuring 10 standard acres 8.3/4 units as declared surplus. As consolidation proceedings intervened, Smt. Shiv Kori applied for demarcation of her permissible and surplus area. Vide order, dated 3.3.1967, the Circle Revenue Officer demarcated the permissible and surplus area but inadvertently included the area sold by Smt. Shiv Kori, in her surplus area. 3. Respondents No 4 to 11, the vendees from Smt. Shiv Kori, approached the Collector for rectification of this error. Vide order, dated 12.2.1970, the Collector excluded the area, purchased by respondents No.4 to 11, from the surplus area. Smt. Shiv Kori filed an appeal against the order, dated 12.2.1970 before the Commissioner, Ambala Division. The Commissioner, Ambala Division accepted the appeal, vide order, dated 10.5.1978 and remitted the matter to the Collector for a fresh adjudication. The Collector thereafter passed an order, dated 29.12.1981 holding that as the sale in favour of respondents No.4 to 11 was effected before 30.7.1958, the vendees were entitled to the benefit of Section 8 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short herein after referred to as “the Haryana Act”) and, therefore, their land had to be excluded, while computing the land holding of Smt. Shiv Kori. 4. During the pendency of these proceedings, one Amir Singh ­respondent No.12, (since deceased, and now represented by his L.Rs), filed an application claiming that he was a sitting tenant over Khasra Nos. 48/24, 23, 18, 19/1, 12 and 17, and was, therefore, entitled to the land comprising his tenancy. The Collector rejected his claim. Aggrieved by this order, Amir Singh filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division. 48/24, 23, 18, 19/1, 12 and 17, and was, therefore, entitled to the land comprising his tenancy. The Collector rejected his claim. Aggrieved by this order, Amir Singh filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division. Vide order, dated 20.1.1983, the Commissioner held that the land, subject matter of the sale deed, dated 29.1.1958, could not be excluded, as respondents No.4 to 11 were not entitled to the benefit of Section 8 of the Haryana Act. The petitioners thereafter filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana Chandigarh, which was dismissed. 5. Counsel for the petitioners, as also counsel for respondents No.4 to 11 submit in unison that Smt. Shiv Kori executed a sale deed on 29.1.1958. Section 8 of the Haryana Act postulates that a big landowner would be entitled to exclude from his or her landholding, land, sold prior to 30.7.1958. The petitioners and the vendees were, therefore, entitled to pray and have the land, subject matter of their sale deed, excluded from the big landowner’s holding. It is submitted that on the date of enactment of the Haryana Act, the application, filed by respondents No.4 to 11, was pending adjudication and, therefore, the sale, effected prior to 30.7.1958, was to be necessarily excluded, from the big landlord’s holding. It is further argued that the Commissioner, as also the Financial Commissioner have, upon an erroneous interpretation of the provisions of Section 8 of the Haryana Act, held that the Collector could not grant the benefit of Section 8 of the Haryana Act to the petitioners. 6. Counsel for the L.Rs of respondent No.12, on the other hand, submits that with the coming into force of the Haryana Act, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 12(3), surplus area, declared under the Punjab Act, would automatically vest in the State of Haryana. The Commissioner, and the Financial Commissioner rightly set aside the order, passed by the Collector, granting the benefit of Section 8 of the Haryana Act. It is further submitted that the respondents are sitting tenants and are entitled to allotment of the surplus area. Exclusion of the land, sold to respondents No.4 to 11, would necessarily affect the rights of respondent No.12, as the area, available for purchase, would be reduced. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. It is further submitted that the respondents are sitting tenants and are entitled to allotment of the surplus area. Exclusion of the land, sold to respondents No.4 to 11, would necessarily affect the rights of respondent No.12, as the area, available for purchase, would be reduced. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. The big landowner, namely, Smt. Shiv Kori sold land measuring 27 bighas 4 biswas on 29.1.1958. During consolidation, this land was assigned Khasra Nos.48/24, 23, 18, 19/1, 12 and 17. As noticed in the narrative of facts, the land, purchased by respondents No.4 to 11, was placed in the surplus area of the big landowner. Respondents No.4 to 11 therefore, filed an application for rectification of this error. Their application was accepted by the Collector. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, however, reversed this order, by holding that with the coming into force of the Haryana Act, any land declared surplus under the Punjab Act would automatically vest in the State. The argument that Section 8 of the Haryana Act provides that any bona fide sale, effected prior to 30.7.1958, would have to be excluded from the land holding of a big landowner and cannot be placed in the permissible or the surplus area, was rejected. 8. Section 12(3) of the Haryana Act provides that any area, declared surplus under the Punjab Act, would automatically vest in the State of Haryana. However, Section 8 of the Haryana Act postulates that land sold by the big landowner, prior to 30.7.1958, would be excluded, while computing, the landholding of a big landowner and would, therefore, necessarily apply to proceedings pending on the enactment of the Haryana Act. Admittedly, the sale deed, executed in favour of the petitioners, bears the date 29.1.1958 i.e. prior to 30.7.1958. On the enactment of the Haryana Act, proceedings with respect to surplus area of the big landowner were admittedly pending. The big landowner and/or his vendees were, therefore, entitled to rely upon the provisions of Section 8 of the Haryana Act and pray that the land, subject matter of the sale deed, dated 29.1.1958, be excluded, while calculating the big landowner’s holding. 9. The vires of Section 8 of the Haryana Act. The big landowner and/or his vendees were, therefore, entitled to rely upon the provisions of Section 8 of the Haryana Act and pray that the land, subject matter of the sale deed, dated 29.1.1958, be excluded, while calculating the big landowner’s holding. 9. The vires of Section 8 of the Haryana Act. came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Jaswant Kaur and another v. The State of Haryana and another, 1977 PLJ 230. While considering the alleged inconsistencies between the provisions of Sections 8 and 12(3) of the Haryana Act, the Full Bench held as follows: “8. The provisions of sections 4 and 8, particularly section 8, appear on first impression to be inconsistent with the provisions of section 12(3) but, as we said earlier, it is our first duty to seek to avoid conflict by endeavouring to harmonise and reconcile every part so that each shall be effective. A closure and critical examination of the provisions shows that they are not irreconcilable and all of them fit well into the general scheme of the Act. Section 8 has not been repealed expressly, by section 12(3) of the Act, nor can it be said, in the view that we are taking, that it was repealed by necessary implication. Section 12(3) was introduced by way of amendment by Act XVII of 1976. By section 1(2) of the Amending Act, it is deemed to have come into force on 23.12.1972. A harmonious way of construing sections 8 and 12(3) would be to give full effect to section 8(1) upto 23.12.1972, that is to say, to exclude from the operation of section 12(3), the transfers made upto 23.12.1972 which are protected by section 8(1) of the Act, namely, (1) acquisition of land by the State or Central Government, (2) acquisition by a tenant under the Pepsu law or the Punjab law, or (3) acquisition by an heir by inheritance. Other transfers of land in excess of permissible area under the Punjab law or the Pepsu law would be protected if the transfers were made prior to 30.7.1958. We see no reason why sections 8 and 12(3) should not be construed in this harmonious manner so as to give effect to both the provisions. We find from the instructions issued from time to time that the Government has also construed the provisions in a similar manner. We see no reason why sections 8 and 12(3) should not be construed in this harmonious manner so as to give effect to both the provisions. We find from the instructions issued from time to time that the Government has also construed the provisions in a similar manner. In Memo No.5726-AR (1A)-76/288l9, dated 15.9.76, addressed by the Financial Commissioner and the Secretary to Government, Haryana, Revenue Department, to the Commissioners of the Ambala and Hissar Divisions etc., it is said :­ “The surplus area already purchased by the eligible tenants/persons under section 18 of the Punjab law and section 22 of the Pepsu law should be considered to have been lawfully utilized and should not, therefore, be vested in the State Government under section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. Only such unutilized surplus area which was not purchased by the eligible tenants/persons under the Punjab law or Pepsu law should be deemed to have been vested in the State Government from the appointed day under section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, and may be mutated in favour of the State Government immediately and necessary action to allot such area to the eligible persons may be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Utilization of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme, 1976.” Again in Memo No.6632-AR (II)-76/33309, dated 29.10.76 it is said, “It has come to the notice of the Government that there is some lack of understanding in correctly interpreting the provisions of section 8 and section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. In this regard it is clarified that section 8 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, inter-alia prohibits transfers and dispositions of land in excess of the permissible area under the old Acts made after the 30th July, 1958. Therefore, transfers or dispositions of surplus area under the Punjab Law or the Pepsu Law made before the 30th July, 1958 stand regularised by law or in other words they would affect the surplus pool. Therefore, transfers or dispositions of surplus area under the Punjab Law or the Pepsu Law made before the 30th July, 1958 stand regularised by law or in other words they would affect the surplus pool. As a result of this, the surplus area which had been transferred or disposed of by the land-owners before 30.7.1958, shall not vest in the State Government under section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, and therefore, such area cannot be utilized in accordance with the Utilization of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme, 1976”. 10. The dispute with respect to the true import of Section 8 of the Haryana Act, arose once again and was referred to a Full Bench. In The State of Haryana and others vs. Chandgi, 1981 PLJ 494, the Full Bench, after considering the ratio, laid down in Smt. Jaswant Kaur and another’s case (supra), held as follows : “……Shri Naubat Singh, the learned Assistant Advocate General, also agreed that we should harmonise section 8 and section 12(3) in the manner that we have done but he suggested that the date upto which transfers of the three categories specified by us earlier as (1), (2) and (3) should be recognised, should be the appointed day (24.1.1971) and not the date on which section 12(3) came into force. We do not agree. Section 1(2) of Act XVII of 1976 expressly provides that the Act shall come into force on 23.12.1972. We must give some meaning and effect to it. In our view, the effect of section 12(3) coming into force from 23.12.1972 on section 8 is that transfers of the three categories specified by us made upto 23.12.1972 would be excluded from the operation of section 12(3) that transfers of land in excess of the permissible area under the Punjab or Pepsu Law would be protected if made before 30.7.1958 and that all other land not excepted by section 8 would vest in the State Government with effect from the appointed day.” 11. It is, therefore, apparent that a sale, effected prior to 30.7.1958 would have to be excluded, while computing the total landholding of the big landowner, provided proceedings are pending on the enactment of the Haryana Act. It is, therefore, apparent that a sale, effected prior to 30.7.1958 would have to be excluded, while computing the total landholding of the big landowner, provided proceedings are pending on the enactment of the Haryana Act. The learned Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner committed an error in reversing the order, passed by the Collector, whereby the benefit of the sale, made prior to 30.7.1958 was granted to respondents No.4 to 11. As regards the arguments, advanced by counsel for the LRs of respondent No.12, that exclusion of the land, transferred to respondents No.4 to 11, would reduce the area, available to them, for purchase and/or re­settlement, suffice it to say that the claim put-forth by respondent No.12 has already been rejected by the revenue officers. In case the legal representatives of respondent No.12 have any right on account of their alleged status as sitting tenants, which is still to be established, they would be free to approach the authorities for allotment/purchase, in accordance with law. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the orders, dated 20.1.1983(Annexure P-2) and 6.8.1985 (Annexure P-3) are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------