(1.) The only point urged by Mr. Majithia, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that he was not heard before the review application of the landlord (respondent No. 4) was allowed by the Collector, Agrarian (Respondent No. 2) vide which the landlord was permitted to revise his permissible area. The Collector declared the land in dispute as surplus on 24th July, 1961. On appeal by the land-owner, the case was remanded to the Collector by the Commissioner on 2nd March, 1964, for re-decision. The Collector Agrarian decided the case on 13th July, 1964 and declared the land in dispute as surplus. The land-owner filed review application, which was allowed by the Collector Agrarian on 7th September, 1964, and the land in dispute was considered to be forming part of the permissible area of the landowner. Copy of the order dated 7th September, 1964, is Annexure 'A' to the writ petition. The present petitioner was re-settled on the land in dispute on 20th July, 1963. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur on 29th December, 1971 and his revision petition was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue on 12th May, 1972. Copy of the Financial Commissioner's order is Annexure 'C' to the petition. As observed earlier, the petitioner's grievance is that he was not heard at the time the review application of the landowner was allowed by the Collector. This matter stands settled by our own High Court in Karnail Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and Others, 1971 PunLJ 926, wherein it is observed as follows :-
(2.) Ordered accordingly but there will be no order as to costs.