JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J.: - All these writ petitions address the issues which are fully covered by earlier pronouncements of this Court. The facts would only therefore be required to be stated in brief for appropriate application of the law laid down already. 2. The rival contentions are between persons, who claimed as purchasers or legal representatives of the said purchasers from the original big landowner Madan Gopal on the one hand and the State and the allottees from the State are interested in disputing the petitioners’ claim on the ground that the properties have been declared as surplus area under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act of 1953 Act (for short, ‘1953 Act’) and dealt with by virtue of allotments to tenants resettled on their lands after having been ejected from some other land holdings. 3. All these cases have been engaging the attention of the various authorities under the 1953 Act and the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act of 1972 right from the year 1958. There have been several rounds of litigations previously before this Court, firstly, before the single Judge, later brought to a Division Bench in appeal at the instance of the purchasers and later at the Hon’ble Supreme Court which directed a fresh adjudication before the Financial Controller. The matter related to a consideration of whether the original landowner had given a declaration in Form-E under Section 5B of the 1953 Act giving the details of the property which he wished to reserve as falling within his permissible area. The Financial Controller, after the remand, took a decision on securing a report from the Assistant Collector that Form-E had been given within 6 months from the date of commencement of the Amending Act of 1957, on 19.06.1958. While disposing off the objections raised at the instance of the purchasers, he found that the landowner Madan Gopal had set out his own land holdings which he wished to reserve for his personal cultivation and since the properties sold by him to the petitioners fell outside his permissible area and hence treated as surplus. Therefore, the purchasers had no right to clim the properties as their own. The Financial Commissioner approached the whole issue only from the standpoint of whether the purchasers could have asked for the properties purchased by them to be shown within the permissible area of the landowner. Therefore, the purchasers had no right to clim the properties as their own. The Financial Commissioner approached the whole issue only from the standpoint of whether the purchasers could have asked for the properties purchased by them to be shown within the permissible area of the landowner. Here was the first flaw in the consideration of the Financial Commissioner, as canvassed by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 4. In CWP No.6167 of 1988 and CWP No.503 of 1989, the question is whether the property purchased by the respective petitioners and their predecessors could suffer by their properties being treated as falling within the surplus area and liable for vesting with the State to make them available by way of allotments to various classes of persons eligible under the scheme for distribution of surplus area. The issue was not merely whether the landlord was entitled to exclude the properties sold by him and reserve the remaining items of properties unalienated items of properties as falling within his permissible area. Such a consideration would arise in cases where sales are made after the relevant date when the amendment was brought on 20.12.1957. Under the 1953 Act, the reservation which the landlord was entitled to make for keeping the property within his permissible area under Section 5 was getting periodically extended from time to time ever since the Act was brought into force in the year 1953. By the last amendment made in the year 1957 by introducing Sections 5A, B and C etc., the landlord had a power to make a declaration in Form-E within 6 months from the date of the commencement of the Act. All the properties which were shown within the permissible area was required to be excluded and only the remaining items of properties held by the landowner on that date could be shown as surplus. The surplus pool can therefore be only in relation to the property owned by the landowner after excluding the permissible area. No portion of the property which had been already sold by the landowner before the commencement of the Amending Act on 20.12.1957 could ever assume significance. The surplus pool can therefore be only in relation to the property owned by the landowner after excluding the permissible area. No portion of the property which had been already sold by the landowner before the commencement of the Amending Act on 20.12.1957 could ever assume significance. Even properties sold by him after 20.12.1957 but within the permitted period of 6 months would also obtain significance in so far as a purchaser during the said period from 20.12.1957 to the period of 6 months would be required to be served with a notice so that there was a scope for showing bonafides to his purchase and seek for the allotment of the properties purchased by him to be kept within the reserved area of the landlord. For all the transactions of sales which had taken place before 20.12.1957, there could be simply no issue of the property being considered in surplus area proceedings. They could not be termed to be the holding of the landowner in order that the State might declare them as surplus. Consequently, the petitioners, who were purchasers or representatives, namely, on 29.01.1954, yet another sale on the same date on 29.01.1954, on 11.11.1954 and on 22.02.1956, were all transactions which were outside the purview of vesting with the State. 5. The above issue relating to the protection of purchasers between the date when the Act came into force in the year 1953 on 15.04.1953 to 30.07.1958 has been the subject of adjudication before this Court in two important pronouncements in Kanianwali Cooperative Farming Society at Kanianwali and others Versus The State of Punjab and others- 1969 PLJ 258 and Jaswant Kaur and another Versus The State of Haryana and another- 1977 PLJ 230 . In Kanianwali’s case, a Full Bench of this Court held by a majority, with Justice D.K. Mahajan dissenting, that Section 19-B of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act as amended by Act 14 of 1962 is operative from 15.04.1953 and transfers effected between 15.04.1953 and 30.07.1958 having the effect of diminishing of surplus area could not be taken into reckoning and must be ignored. In Jaswant Kaur’s case (supra), a 5-Member-Full Bench took up the consideration of the effect of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act on the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. In Jaswant Kaur’s case (supra), a 5-Member-Full Bench took up the consideration of the effect of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act on the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. The Full Bench held, inter alia, that acquisition by an heir by inheritance or by a transfer of land in excess of the permissible area under the Punjab Law (Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act) would be protected if either one of the incidents had taken place prior to 30.07.1958 and only all other lands not excepted by Section 8 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act would vest in the State Government with effect from the appointed date. These two decisions put beyond the pale of any doubt that the petitioners in CWP No.6167 of 1988 and CWP No.503 of 1989 are fully protected and the properties could not have been treated as available for the State either for vesting or fit for consideration for allotment from the surplus pool. The orders of the Financial Controller challenged in the writ petition and all the orders passed by the subordinate authorities that merged with the Financial Controller to the extent they hold that the surplus area decided by the State was not liable for interference were wrongly decided and would be required to be quashed and accordingly quashed. 6. There are substantial case law on the issue of the entitlement of all purchasers to be served with notice before a decision is taken on the surplus area proceedings. They would all be relevant in cases where the sales are crucially after the Amending Act in the year 1957 to the 6 months period when the landlord has to give the details of the permissible area which he seeks to reserve to himself as well as the transfers effected before the authorities take a decision on the surplus area. I am not reproducing those authorities, for, I think they are irrelevant in this case since all the purchasers, who have intervened or their successors were protected even otherwise since their sales had been made before the relevant date for the landlord to make his reservation under Section 5-B of the Punjab Law of 1953. 7. I am not reproducing those authorities, for, I think they are irrelevant in this case since all the purchasers, who have intervened or their successors were protected even otherwise since their sales had been made before the relevant date for the landlord to make his reservation under Section 5-B of the Punjab Law of 1953. 7. CWP Nos.15492, 15493, 15494 and 15495 of 1993 and 15224 and 15279 of 1998 are at the instance of the purchasers again, who initiated actions against resettled tenants under the Punjab Tenancy Act of 1887, seeking for eviction of the tenants. The contention in defence by all the tenants was that they had been resettled after the property was declared as surplus and the petitioners had applied for a review of the decision only in the year 1971 after the property had been utilized after declaration of surplus. The authorities held that it was irrelevant that the surplus area proceedings had not come to finality by virtue of the fact that after the determination of surplus and a declaration made to the effect on 21.09.1961 that an extent of 254.78 standard acres of land belonging to the big landowner Madan Gopal was liable to be treated as surplus, the petitioners cannot have any relief under the Punjab Tenancy Act. This line of reasoning is wholly erroneous for the rights of the settled tenants cannot be more than what the State authorities had against the owner or the purchaser. If I have held in the decisions in CWP No.6167 of 1988 and CWP No.503 of 1989 that the properties purchased by the petitioners or their predecessors were not available for being treated as surplus, consequentially the allotments secured from the State cannot also survive. This issue has been brought through two decisions of this Court while dealing with the right of resettled tenants. In Thakar Jatinder Singh Versus the State of Haryana and others-1977 PLJ 118, this Court held that a resettled tenant comes into picture only after determination and demarcation of area to be declared as surplus. Declaration of surplus area of landowner could be effective only after the right of selection duly exercised by the landowner or his failure to do so under Section S-B(2) comes to finality. Declaration of surplus area of landowner could be effective only after the right of selection duly exercised by the landowner or his failure to do so under Section S-B(2) comes to finality. An utilization of surplus area by the State and the consequential resettlement of a tenant thereon could be effective only if the surplus area proceedings had themselves come to finality and the reservation under Section 53 is treated as final. I have already observed while dealing with the earlier writ petitions that the Financial Commissioner had found on a report that Form-E had been filed on 19.06.1958. The property which was declared as surplus, other than the reserved area itself, has been found earlier as defective in so far as they included the properties sold in favour of the petitioners. Such of those properties which could not form part of the surplus pool cannot also be a subject of valid allotment to the resettlement tenants. The action for eviction at the instance of the petitioners against such resettled tenants cannot therefore be sustained. In a ruling of this Court in Bhupinder Singh Versus State of Punjab- 1980 PLJ 72 , a Division Bench of this Court held that a status of resettled tenant followed always the declaration of surplus area. Once the decision regarding surplus area is finalized and the surplus area already found is set aside, a resettled tenant’s status automatically would come to an end. The proceedings for de novo determination of surplus area has to commence and in such an eventuality even a resettled tenant is not a necessary party. The Division Bench went as far as to state that even a notice to resettled tenants for redetermination of surplus area is unnecessary. 8. All the above writ petitions would therefore require to be allowed and the decisions taken by the authorities under the Punjab Tenancy Act by dismissals of actions for ejectment are set aside and the petitioners are entitled to secure possession of properties from the hands of the resettled tenants. 9. All the writ petitions are allowed with costs against the State assessed at Rs.5,000/- in each case.