A Letters Patent Appeal against that judgment was dismissed in limine.
who heard the writ petition, held 1 that the finding that the appellants had number planted the said orchard within the statutory period was one of fact and companyld number be challenged in the writ petition and 2 that the said transfer of 26 standard acres was hit by S. 32 FF and therefore was rightly ignored while ascertaining the surplus land.
While that was pending they filed a writ petition in the High Court.
the Punjab Legislature passed the Amendment Act, XVI of 1962 inserting S. 32 KK in the principal Act.
Appeal from the order dated May 30, 1963 of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
The learned Single Judge,.
The High Court following its earlier decision in Bhagat v. State of Punjab 1 missed the writ petition.
The land stood in the revenue records in the name of the first appellant.
V. S. Mani and M. L. Agarwal, for the appellants.
The appeal filed by the appellants against the said order was rejected.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Both these claims were rejected by the authorities.
Their companytention was that the said 26 standard acres and the said 10 standard acres companyld number be taken into account while ascertaining surplus land under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, XIII of 1955.
According to them, they had Planted an orchard in 10 acres of land.
3 declared 34.35 standard acres out of the said 64.35 standard acres as Surplus land.
K. Mehta, and K. L. Mehta, for the interveners.
During the pendency of that writ petition.
The present appeal by certificate is directed against the dismissal of the said writ petition.
The main companytention urged before the High Court, however, was that each of the three appellants who companystituted the said family was entitled to ,retain 30 standard acres, that as the total holding was only 64.35 standard acres, there was numbersurplus land liable to be acquired under the Act and, therefore, the order declaring 34.35 Standard acres, as surplus land was illegal.
Dipak Dutt Chaudhuri and R. N. Sachthey, for the respon dents.
92 of 1966.,
148 of 1963.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. The appellants are members of a Hindu undivided family of which the first appellant is the Karta.
Prior to August 21, 1956, the family owned 64.35 standard acres of land in village Kurali, District Patiala.
On December 23, 1957, the first appellant transferred 26 standard acres to one Babu Singh by a registered deed.
By his order dated January 20, 1961, respondent No.
They then filed a revision application before respondent No.
