Before examining the question of law referred to hereinbefore it is necessary to set out the material facts.
1418 of 1961 in the High Court of PUnjab at Chandigarh under Art.
Thereafter the appellants filed Civil Writ No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated March 30, 1964 of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent.
The appellants alongwith Charanjit Singh and Darshan, the two other sons of the first appellant were members of a joint Hindu family.
Counsel for the parties on the other questions raised in the appeal.
The principal Act came into force on March 6, 1955.
Against the order of the Commissioner, the appellants appealed to the State Government but that appeal was rejected on September 1, 1961.
226 of the Constitution challenging the decisions of respondents 1 to 3.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
463 of 1966.
24 of 1963.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. Though several questions of law were raised in this appeal by special leave, after hearing the Counsel for the parties on one of those questions, namely on what date s. 32 KK of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1955 Act No.
The second appellant is the son of the first appellant.
Appeal No.
Harbans Singh and R.N. Sachthey, for the respondents.
The appellants unsuccessfully went up in appeal against that order to the Commissioner, Patiala Division.
That family owned agricultural lands in the village Hathoa, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.
XIII of 1955 to be hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act should be deemed to have companye into force, we did number think it necessary to hear the.
C. Agrawala and Champat Rai, for the appellant.
