“I have taken into consideration the arguments of the counsel for the parties and have perused the papers filed with revision petition. I find that in the appeal before the Commissioner, the petitioners did not adduce any evidence to show that they were tenants on the appointed day. Even if their appeal was badly time-barred, they ought to have produced evidence if they had any claim. But they failed to do so. Even their revision petition before me was file without a certified copy of order dated 29.5.1985 of Collector (Agrarian), Fazilka, vide which the surplus area case of Kirpal Singh, respondent No.2, was decided. Vide my order dated 22.9.1922, the counsel for the petitioners was directed to produce the certified copy before the next date of hearing and the case was adjourned to 27.10.1992. Therefore, the case was adjourned to various dates and the petitioner took as many as 10 opportunities for supplying a certified copy of the order dated 29.5.1985. I am as such inclined to agree with the Senior State Counsel that the petitioners have no case and that they only want to delay the utilisation of surplus area. Copies of khasra girdawries brought on record at the time of arguments do not support the case of the petitioners. In these khasra girdawris, the land in dispute has been shown khali throughout even on the crucial date i.e. on 24.1.1971. In these circumstances, it cannot be presumed that the petitioners have been tenants on the appointed day. Since the petitioners have badly failed to make out any case, I see no reason to interfere with the orders of the
