him in Pakistan; The second appellant, Collector Surplus .Area, Sirsa, in determining the surplus area. under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) left only 100 ordinary acrs with the respondent as hi permissible ara and declared the rest of the land measuring 78.57 ordmary acres, eqUI'alent to 25.99 standard acres, as surplus. Permissible Area as defined m sec. 2(3) of the Act is as follows : " "Permissible area" in relation to a land owner o.r a tenant means thirty standard acres and where such thlfty stand~rd acres on being converted into ordinary acres exceed sixty acres, such six1J,y acres : Provided that(i) no area under an orchard at the commencement of this Act, ·shall be taken into account in computing the permissible area: (ii) for a displaced person( a) who has been allptted land in excess of fifty standard · acres, the permissible area shall be fifty standard acres or one hundred ordinary acres, as the case may be. (b) who has been allotted land in excess of tl)irty standard acres, but less than fifty standard acres, the permissible area shall be equal to his allotted area. ( c) who has been allotted land less than thirty standard acres, the permissible area shall be thirty standard acres, including any other land or part thereof, if any, that he owns in addition." 'rhere is an explanation to this definition which is not relevant for . the present purpose. Surplus Area would be the area in excess of the permissible area. According to the respondent the surplus area in his case cannot exceed 5.80 standard acres in view of the proviso (ii) (a) to sec. 2(3), and being aggrieved by the order of the Collector preferred an appeal to the Commissioner. The Commissioner remanded the case to the Collector for a fresh determination of the respondent's surplus area observing that in the case of a displaced person if the allotment was in standard acres, 50 standard acres would be the permissible area and if the allotment was in ordinary acres the permissible area would be 100 ordinary acres. On remand the Collector upheld his own previous order and the appeal taken by the respondent from this order was dismissed by the Commissioner. The respondent filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, who also upheld the order of the Collector ·and dismissed the petition. The respondent thereafter flied a writ petition in Punjab and Haryana High Court which was allowed. The leatrteµ Judge who heard the writ petition held following a full Bench decision of the same High Court, Khan Chand v. State of Punjab,(1} that it was "not legitimate for the authority to treat as surplus· (1) A. I. R. 1966 Punjab 423.
