JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 14.9.2010 passed by the Financial Commissioner and also the order passed by the Commissioner, whereby the respondents have been asked to pay a sum of Rs.60,200/- alongwith interest as determined by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade instead of directing their ejectment, which was prayed for by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a big land owner, whereas respondents are tenants over the suit land. The petitioner filed an application in Form-L for recovery of arrears of rent for Kharif-2004 and Rabi-2005 in respect of land measuring 90 kanals 11 marlas belonging to the petitioner, which was being cultivated by the respondents. Assistant Collector 1st Grade Dabwali calculated the arrears of rent alongwith the interest and directed respondents to deposit the amount of Rs.60,200/- with interest at the rate of 8% within 15 days. On their failure to deposit the said amount, the respondents were ordered to be ejected from the disputed land. 3. Respondents filed an appeal against this order before the Collector, who accepted the same on 27.1.2007. The order passed by the Assistant Collector was set aside by holding that the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 would be attracted in the instant case and the land declared surplus would be deemed to have vested in the State. It is accordingly held that relationship of landlord/tenant between the petitioner and respondents would cease to exist. It is accordingly held that tenants could not be ejected from the land by moving an application under Section 9(1) of the Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 for nonpayment of rent. 4. The petitioner land-owner challenged the said order by filing appeal before the Commissioner, who accepted the same and set aside the order passed by the Collector on 3.7.2009. The respondents-tenants, however, challenged this order before the Financial Commissioner, who has set aside the order passed by the Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner has not accepted the plea of the petitioner that the land owner will remain owner till allotment is made under Section 15 of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act. This view has been found to be erroneous. It is held that this Section deals with the scheme of allotment and reserves no such right for the original land owner. This view has been found to be erroneous. It is held that this Section deals with the scheme of allotment and reserves no such right for the original land owner. The petitioner has accordingly challenged this order through the present writ petition. 5. Respondents-tenants have filed reply. They have conceded that the petitioner was the owner of the land in dispute and respondents No.2 and 3 are in the cultivating possession thereof as tenants under him. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has filed an application in Form-L when the Assistant Collector calculated the arrears of rent due and directed the respondents to deposit the same. However, the right of the Assistant Collector to direct ejectment on failure to pay rent is disputed and is stated to be incorrect and wrong. Reference is made to the provisions provided in the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (Punjab Act) for ejectment of a tenant for non-payment of rent and for recovery of arrears of rent. Section 14-A (i) provides that a land owner desiring to eject a tenant, shall apply in writing to Assistant Collector, who shall proceed thereafter as per the procedure under Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Punjab Act. The application under Section 14-A(i) has to be filed in Form-L. This is so provided by Rule 22 of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. It is stated that prior to 1991, the Assistant Collector was not required to make any assessment of rent and the land owner had simply to plead that tenant had failed to pay the rent without any sufficient cause. The Legislature in its wisdom and in order to save the tenants from illegal ejectment by unscrupulous and crafty landowners due to non-payment of rent added Proviso to Section 14-A(i) to the effect that if the tenant makes the payment of arrears of rent and interest as calculated within 15 days from the first hearing, then he would not be ejected. This Proviso was added to meet the situation so that the tenants could be protected. This Proviso was added to meet the situation so that the tenants could be protected. The proviso reads as under:- “Provided that if the tenant makes payment of arrears of rent and interest, to be calculated by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, at eight percentum per annum on such arrears together with such costs of the application, if any, as may be allowed by the Assistant Collector 1st, either on the day of first hearing or within fifteen days from the date of such hearing, he shall not be ejected.” 6. The application for recovery of rent, according to the respondents, had to be filed under Section 14-A(ii) of the Punjab Law and was required to be filed in Form-M. The copy of the Form-M is also placed on record. 7. In this context, it is pleaded that Assistant Collector passed the order treating this case to be of recovery of rent and made assessment of the rent requiring the respondents to pay within 15 days. According to the respondents, the Assistant Collector failed to notice that the ejectment of the tenant from the area declared surplus which had vested in the State Government could not be ordered and the land owners were only entitled to recover the rent if due by filing an application in Form-M under Section 14-A(ii) of the Punjab Act or by filing a regular suit under Section 77(3)(n) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Collector and that of the Commissioner have been held justified. As per the respondents, the reliance on the case of Lal Chand and others Vs. The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Assistant Collector and others, 2000 (2) PLJ 478 has no applicability. This was a case arising out of a suit filed under Section 77(3)(n) of the Punjab Tenancy Act for recovery of rent and tenant had contested the suit on the ground that the tenancy of the land had been declared as permissible area. Due to this, he pleaded that tenant no longer was liable to pay the rent. It was held that the tenant becomes owner of the land only after the same is allotted to him under the Haryana Utilization Scheme and he had paid the first instalment. The present one is a different case as is urged by the respondents. Due to this, he pleaded that tenant no longer was liable to pay the rent. It was held that the tenant becomes owner of the land only after the same is allotted to him under the Haryana Utilization Scheme and he had paid the first instalment. The present one is a different case as is urged by the respondents. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents has relied upon Jodha Ram (dead) by Legal Representatives Vs. Financial Commissioner Haryana and others, 1994 PLJ 28, wherein it is held that once the land was declared surplus, the right of utilization of the area remained with the State Government. The land owner in such a case has only a right to receive a rent from the tenant of the surplus land. Under no provision of the Act, right, title and interest of the land owner vests even after declaration of the land as surplus area. Right of the land owner to utilise surplus land or to remain as owner thereof absolutely curtailed. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made before me by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 9. The Financial Commissioner in this case came to a positive conclusion that the land in question had been declared surplus and the respondent-tenants had been in possession since 1952. The tenants had also applied for allotment of the land. Section 12 of the Haryana Act clearly provides that once the area of a land owner is declared surplus all right, title and interest of all the person in such area shall stand extinguished and all such rights, title and interest shall vest in the State Government free from any encumbrance. This would also apply to the area which is declared surplus under the Punjab Act which may have not vested till then with the State Government. On this basis, the Financial Commissioner found that the right of ownership had passed on to the State Government and, thus, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents. Still, the respondents-tenants have to pay this rent till they acquired the proprietory rights after due allotment of this land as has been held in Lal Chand’s case (supra). As held in Bhagwanti Versus State of Haryana, 1994 PLJ 245, the land owner had right to recover the rent from the tenant sitting in the surplus area. Still, the respondents-tenants have to pay this rent till they acquired the proprietory rights after due allotment of this land as has been held in Lal Chand’s case (supra). As held in Bhagwanti Versus State of Haryana, 1994 PLJ 245, the land owner had right to recover the rent from the tenant sitting in the surplus area. The right of utilization, however, remains with the State Government and the landlord can only receive the rent. This position is conceded by the counsel appearing for the respondents. In view of this legal position, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. 10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.