He further submitted that one Bakhtawari Devi widow of late Sh. Jasraj, predecessor-in-interest of respondent no.6 was a big landlady and the aforesaid area in possession of the petitioners as tenants, vide order dated 28.02.1962 (Annexure P-6) was declared as surplus in the surplus case by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Allotment Authority (SDCA), Sirsa, under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “1953 Act”) and the petitioners continued to be in possession of the aforesaid surplus area as tenants, in essence, the tenants remained in possession. The authorities were enjoined upon an obligation under 1953 Act and Rules 1956, i.e., The Punjab Security of Land Tenures and Rules 1956 to determine the assessment of area with landowners and tenants in different forms, in essence, the Tenant's Permissible Area (hereinafter referred to as “TPA”) under Section 9A was required to be determined. Though, if the tenancy commenced after the commencement of the Act, then tenants would not be entitled to such benefits. Owing to such fallacy, the petitioners since 1930 continued to possess the same as tenants. As a result thereof, the application dated 3.4.2006 (Annexure P-1) was submitted to the SDO for allotment of area measuring 41 kanals 2 marlas under category “A” as per the provisions of the Haryana Utilization of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “1976 Scheme”). The aforementioned authority after seeking the report from the surplus branch, vide order dated 30.06.2006 (Annexure P-2) held that since the petitioners being in cultivating possession as tenants since 1930 were entitled to be declared
