JUDGMENT Mr. K.Kannan, J.: - The case involves the examination of provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act Sections 5-A and 5-B (hereinafter called, “Punjab Law”). The point urged is that if the landowner who holds an extent over the ceiling area did not make a declaration, the State was bound to initiate action under Section 5-B and the expression that the State may take action must be taken as a mandate under the said provision. This has an immediate bearing to a consideration of whether the tenant would be entitled to hold the whole of the property as falling within the tenant’s ceiling area. 2. The problem is accentuated by the fact that the landlord did not make any declaration under the Punjab Law and she gave a declaration only after the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act of 1972 (for short the, ‘1972 Act’) was passed. Section 9 of the 1972 Act allowed for the landowner who held land in excess of the permissible area to give a declaration supported by an affidavit giving the particulars of his land which he/she wanted to retain. The property held by the tenant was left in surplus pool and the State proceeded to make the payment under the Haryana Utilization of Surplus and other Area Scheme of 1976 (for short, the 1976 Scheme’). The tenant, who held the land which would have been within his permissible area under the Punjab Law was affected by the categorization assigned to him, namely, as a category ‘CC’ tenant that had an immediate bearing on the extent of land that could be legitimized as falling within his entitlement. While a category ‘A’ tenant could hold the land declared as the tenant’s permissible area under the Punjab Law, a category ‘C’ tenant was entitled to hold only 2 hectares of land. The Punjab Law permitted for 30 standard acres or 60 ordinary acres of land as falling within his permissible area. 3. The counsel would refer to a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Brij Lal and others Versus State of Haryana and others- 2001(1) PLJ 148 that dealt with a situation of the landowner dying before the surplus area was determined and the heirs not being treated as separate landowners for ceiling purposes. 3. The counsel would refer to a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Brij Lal and others Versus State of Haryana and others- 2001(1) PLJ 148 that dealt with a situation of the landowner dying before the surplus area was determined and the heirs not being treated as separate landowners for ceiling purposes. The case was considered in the light of the law which would be applicable before determination could be done, namely, of the Punjab Law or under the 1972 Act. The counsel would refer to the following observations which have come about subsequent to the court setting out the point for consideration. In para 12, this court in the above judgment observed as follows:- “The sole question to be considered is whether the Financial Commissioner had the power and the jurisdiction to direct that the Collector should decide the surplus area cases of Pat Ram and his sons afresh and then determine if they were big landowners either in their individual capacity or upon inheritance and thereafter decide the case under the Haryana Law and the ejectment application thereafter.” It provided to hold thus:- “........ This order was also contrary to the order of remand dated January 18, 1996, where under the matter had been remanded only for a fresh decision after hearing the tenants. Furthermore, the determination of the cases of some of the sons of Pat Ram by the Collector on July 20, 1977 and August 9, 1977 was also illegal as their respective cases under the Punjab Law had not been previously determined. Resultantly, the orders of the Financial Commissioner passed in ROR Nos.381, 398 and 528 of 1992-93 were perfectly legal and just and are hereby upheld.” 4. The argument was that following the procedure directed by the Division Bench, the Commissioner’s determination of the status as a category ‘C’ tenant must be set aside and the tenant shall be allowed the benefit of reopening the tenant’s permissible area under the Punjab Law and only as regards the remaining property, proceedings under the Haryana Act could be taken. 5. 5. This argument is countered by the State to point out that Section 5-A only employs an expression “may” for the State to act and if he did not, the law could be set in motion after the Haryana Act came into force by an owner holding the property in excess of the ceiling area only in the manner provided under Section 9 and if the owner had furnished the returns for the property to be retained by her as falling within the permissible area and allowing for vesting of the remaining surplus property under the Act, then the consequence of how to deal with the property has perforce to follow the 1976 Scheme only. According to him, it serves adequate public interest in that the property which is held as surplus is still to be distributed among various classes of tenants and no one tenant has a right to insist that he shall have a larger extent determined to him as falling within his area under the erstwhile Punjab Law. 6. Admittedly, the petitioners were tenants at the time of application of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. It is brought as a matter of record the original big landowner did not make any declaration under Section 5-A of the Act. The property held by the tenant continued in his possession as such, for, the State itself did not take an assessment of the holding of the landowner and consider the determination of the ceiling area of the original landowner. Neither Section 5-A or 5-B was invoked. A tenant who continued in possession can only take such status as the succeeding enactment provided in the manner of protection of tenant’s right. When the big landowner gave a declaration under the 1972 Act, that was when it would have been possible for the Government to consider the claims of persons over the land falling within the surplus pool. Admittedly, the holding of the big landowner was beyond the ceiling limit on the coming into force of the 1972 Act. After it made a declaration, it had a right to make allotment in the manner provided under the 1976 Scheme. The petitioner’s own status could be considered only under the 1976 Scheme and it shall be impermissible to recreate the situation as it existed under the Punjab Law. 7. After it made a declaration, it had a right to make allotment in the manner provided under the 1976 Scheme. The petitioner’s own status could be considered only under the 1976 Scheme and it shall be impermissible to recreate the situation as it existed under the Punjab Law. 7. The decision in Brij Lal (supra) does not support the position that the authority must be compelled to take action under Section 5-B of the Act and that the said provision must be understood as containing a mandate to take action if the landowner herself had not given a declaration. Such an argument is fallacious since we have come by several situations where even after declaring the property as surplus but if not utilized, different considerations would prevail by the passing of either the Punjab Land Reforms Act or the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act as regards the vesting of the land as per the respective provisions of the Act. Where there had been already no declaration of surplus under the “Punjab Law”, both under the Punjab Land Reforms Act and under the Haryana Law, the vesting could take place only at the time of declaration. There could be no direction to an authority to take action for determination of surplus under Section 5-B of Punjab Law now. The tenant will come by such rights as the 1972 Act provides and how the 1976 Scheme accords to him the status as tenant. If under the 1972 Act, the property vested with declaration of the properties as surplus and the utilization of such surplus was to be done in terms of 1976 Scheme, that shall be the only provisions which will govern the rights of the tenant. The authorities have acted correctly in proceedings to make allotments on the basis of the categorization that is possible in the 1976 Scheme and if the petitioners belonged only to category ‘C’, they could hold 2 hectares of land and that is all the petitioners would obtain. 8. All the Land Ceiling legislations have an important constitutional obligation to fulfill. Equitable distribution of the property and empowering tillers are constitutional goals for redistribution of economic wealth. The petitioners’ status as tenants cannot also come with a tag that they should be entitled to 30 acres of land which is the ceiling limit under the old law. 8. All the Land Ceiling legislations have an important constitutional obligation to fulfill. Equitable distribution of the property and empowering tillers are constitutional goals for redistribution of economic wealth. The petitioners’ status as tenants cannot also come with a tag that they should be entitled to 30 acres of land which is the ceiling limit under the old law. If under the new dispensation, the extent has fallen to a smaller extent and the declaration itself had come about only under the 1972 Act, it only means that it has made possible for the State a larger surplus in its hands for distribution to other eligible classes of persons as well. It is appropriate and just for the provisions of law governing the allotments shall be given full play. The impugned order is unassailable and the challenge to the same contained in the writ petition cannot be entertained. The writ petition is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————