JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral) - The writ petition is at the instance of one Bharat Singh, who challenged the determination of surplus under the Punjab Land Reforms Act of 1972 by the authorities constituted under the Act on the ground that it wrongly included the holding of the property which his major son Yog Raj was entitled to. It shall not be necessary to reproduce all the various orders passed by the authorities except to state that a point for adjudication in this writ petition is the tenability of the assessment made by the authorities treating the petitioner’s son Yog Raj to be a minor and plead for exclusion of 7 hectares of land that might require to be set apart from him if he had been a major son at the time of appointed day, namely, on 24.01.1971. Initially, when the proceeding for determination of surplus area was undertaken, it had been found on 29.12.1975 that the family of the petitioner was not attracted to the provisions of the Act treating the petitioner’s son Yog Raj as a major and hence, entitled to be allocated with 7 hectares and the petitioner as the father of Yog Raj and three other sons was entitled to another 7 hectares. This was objected to at the instance of the private respondents, who were the tenants, who wanted to contend that the petitioner’s son Yog Raj was a minor having been born on 22.10.1954. The contest regarding the age was on account of a contention by the petitioner and his son, who relied on the record maintained by the Chowkidar showing his date of birth to be 25.04.1951, while the tenants’ contention was with reference to the age as entered in the matriculation certificate as 22.10.1954. The case came to be remanded after several rounds of adjudication by the Financial Commissioner directing that the Collector should determine the holding of the family and the assessment of the minor sons of the petitioner. The Financial Commissioner did not specifically accept or reject the respective certificates relied on by the parties but issued a direction to assess whether there was any minor member in the family on the appointed day. This would have definitely require an adjudication of whether the petitioner’s son Yog Raj was born on 25.04.1951 or 22.10.1954. The Financial Commissioner did not specifically accept or reject the respective certificates relied on by the parties but issued a direction to assess whether there was any minor member in the family on the appointed day. This would have definitely require an adjudication of whether the petitioner’s son Yog Raj was born on 25.04.1951 or 22.10.1954. However, the Collector did not go into any specific finding on the certificates relied on by the respective parties, but proceeded to assume that Yog Raj was a minor and declared 3.8298 hectares as surplus. 2. Simultaneously with the proceedings which were taken by the Collector pursuant to the order of remand, there had been independently a suit filed at the instance of two other sons of the petitioner, who claimed that the entire proceedings culminating in the determination of surplus was illegal in view of want of notice to them as separate owners of the property. They claimed that the assumption of the authorities that the properties belonged to the petitioner Bharat Singh was erroneous, for, it included their own separate properties which were bequeathed to them through the Will of the grandfather Hazura Singh on 26.05.1967. The authorities under the Act were also impleaded as parties and although the trial Court framed an issue about the genuineness of the Will, it entered a finding which was prevaricating in nature in so far as it observed that the Will did not appear to be genuine, but even if it was genuine, it would not have been made a difference for the holding of the minors in their own individual capacity would still be considered along with the holding of the father as belonging to the family of the person and hence, a declaration therefor was unnecessary. The petitioner’s another son Yog Raj had been arrayed as a defendant in the suit and he had also preferred an appeal against the judgment since the plaintiffs alone were not the beneficiaries under the Will but even Yog Raj was a beneficiary and he had challenged the findings of the trial Court in the appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.240 of 1998-99. The trial Court also observed that the genuineness or otherwise of the Will was irrelevant, for, the holding of the plaintiffs even as independent owners would not make a difference, for, they had to be included in the holding of the petitioner as members of the “family”. Two second appeals have been filed, one at the instance of Yog Raj and another at the instance of the plaintiffs, challenging the decision of the Civil Court dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit for declaration. 3. After filing of the writ petition, the father Bharat Singh has expired and Yog Raj has been impleaded as legal representative. As a first contention, the learned counsel would state that irrespective of the issue of whether Yog Raj was a minor or major, the death of Bharat Singh before the conclusion of proceedings before the authorities has altered the position inasmuch as the assessment has to be made in the hands of the legal heirs, in which event, the total holding would not be in excess of the permissible area. The counsel would refer to a decision of this Court in Smt. Bhanti Devi and others Versus The State of Haryana and others- 2012(1) Vol.CLXV PLR 587, dealing with the effect of the death of the landowner during the pendency of the proceedings that was decided on the basis of a Full Bench ruling of this Court in Sardara Singh Versus The Financial Commissioner, [2008(2) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 961] : 2008(3) 151 PLR 297. The petitioner would also contend that the decision of the Collector and the successive authorities rendered by assuming that the Commissioner had already found Yog Raj to be a minor on that date, was erroneous, but the Commissioner himself had not entered a specific finding any more than directing a consideration for determination of the persons, who were minors on the appointed date, namely, on 24.01.1971. Adverting to the merits of the contentions in the second appeals, it was contended that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the proceedings before the authorities when they were concluded without notice to the persons, who were the owners of the property and a 5-Member Bench of Full Bench of this Court has held in State of Haryana and others Versus Vinod Kumar and others-1986(1) LXXXIX PLR 223, that the remedy of institution of a civil suit was available under Section 9 CPC, notwithstanding Section 25 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act of 1953. The counsel would argue that the determination of surplus area without notice to owners was a nullity and the right of owners to challenge by intra-departmental appeals before the authorities under the Act will not exclude a Civil Court from rendering an adjudication about the nullity of the order passed under the Act. 4. In my view the case has to be rested on the simple issue of fact that original petitioner in the writ petition Bharat Singh had died during the pendency of proceedings before the final determination of the surplus under the Act and in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sardara Singh, referred to above, the case has to be remitted to the Collector (Agrarian) for a fresh determination by taking note of the subsequent event of devolution of interest of the property of Bharat Singh assuming all the properties were to be treated as the properties held by him as a full owner. The impugned order has to be set aside only on this short ground. However, it shall not be appropriate to conclude the proceedings only on that basis, since the other issues go to yield to a similar result, but they would still be relevant for any future actions relating to ownership of property by the respective individuals. I find that the Financial Commissioner has not concluded anywhere in his proceedings dated 13.01.1983 that Yog Raj was only a minor. The Collector (Agrarian) shall examine the documents respectively relied on by the parties, namely, the record maintained by the Chowkidar that showed the date of birth of the son as 25.04.1951 as against the age given in the matriculation certificate as 22.10.1954. The Collector (Agrarian) shall examine the documents respectively relied on by the parties, namely, the record maintained by the Chowkidar that showed the date of birth of the son as 25.04.1951 as against the age given in the matriculation certificate as 22.10.1954. Yog Raj has been relying on a Civil Court decree obtained against the general public and I would hold that the Civil Court decree will not be conclusive against the State, since the State was not made as a party and such a Civil Court decree must be merely treated as a weak evidence and the authority will be competent to decide on the appropriate date of birth without reference to the Civil Court decree. As far as the Civil Court decisions are concerned which are the subject matter of challenge in the second appeals, I would find no error in its finding that the genuineness or otherwise of the Will was itself irrelevant, as far as the plaintiffs in the suit were concerned, though it may have a bearing on the claim of Yog Raj, who asserted an independent right through the Will in his capacity as a major son. If the adjudication were to yield to a finding that he was also a minor son at the relevant time, then bequest would make no difference, the same way it would make no difference for the plaintiffs in the Civil Court. If the findings were to be entered that Yog Raj was a major, then it would be essential to consider whether the Will was genuine and whether Yog Raj obtained any particular share in the property in terms of bequest. I have already observed that the findings of the trial Court have been prevaricating in nature with no positive finding rejecting the Will as not genuine. It has only made an inference from the fact that the mutation had not been effected on the basis of the Will immediately after Hazura Singh’s death, but the mutation was effected only subsequently by means of a Civil Court decree that the Will could not be true. The appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the suit, have contended in second appeals that the Courts have not considered the evidence of a witness who was examined to speak about the valid execution and attestation of the Will. The appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the suit, have contended in second appeals that the Courts have not considered the evidence of a witness who was examined to speak about the valid execution and attestation of the Will. I would not reopen the case for consideration and remit the matter to the trial Court only for the reason that it will be inexigent to do so at this length of time, since the Civil Court proceedings were themselves initiated by the plaintiffs in the suit to obviate the fact of declaration of surplus under the Punjab Land Reforms Act. If such an adjudication is done otherwise by virtue of the direction contained in the writ petition on account of two factors, namely, the death of Bharat Singh that would compel the fresh determination and the actual determination of the minority or otherwise of Yog Raj, I would not upset the finding of the Civil Court to require the matter to be adjudicated again before the Civil Courts. I would keep the issue of genuineness of the Will open and would not find it necessary to remit the matter to Civil Court for adjudication afresh in the light of the directions given in the writ petition. As regards the maintainability of the suit itself, it is covered by the decision of a 5-Member Bench, referred to above, and I hold that the suit was maintainable, but no relief is necessary, since fresh determination is directed to be made for determination of the holding of the family by the directions contained in the writ petition. 5. In the ultimate analysis, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and remitted to the Collector (Agrarian) for redetermination of the holding after issuing notice to all the persons, who stand entered as owners of the property as on the date when the proceedings were originally initiated on 29.12.1975. The Collector (Agrarian) shall take note of the death of Bharat Singh and if he finds that in terms of the judgment of Sardara Singh(supra), the devolution of ownership of the property in respect of the admitted properties of Bharat Singh as absolute owner would make difference, he shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It shall be done by a declaration to that effect and all the further proceedings may be dropped. It shall be done by a declaration to that effect and all the further proceedings may be dropped. If the succession would not make any difference and there would be a need for examining the issue of the age of Yog Raj, the same shall be taken up for adjudication after joining the persons, who are interested in contesting the petitioner’s claim to consider whether or not the holding of the family and the holding of Yog Raj were attracted to the provisions of the Act and there existed surplus in their hands. 6. The writ petition is allowed and remitted on the above directions. The second appeals are disposed off and the substantial questions of law are found to be unnecessary for being answered in the light of the observations contained in the writ petition. The Contempt Petition is also disposed off as unnecessary. ---------0.B.S.0------------