(1.) The admitted facts in this appeal are : The land in dispute measuring 24 Kanals was acquired by the State under the Land Acquisition Act. Col. Gurdial Singh and Jasbir Singh sons of Shri Harnam Singh, stated their claims to the compensation contending, Harnam Singh was the landowner and on his death they being his heirs had become owners by succession.
(2.) Angrej Singh appellant controverted the claims of the owners and staked his own claim contending, Harnam Singh was a big landowner and the land in dispute having been declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was allotted to him as resettled tenant. Purchase by him was allowed under section 18 of the Act by the Assistant Collector on payment in instalments and first instalment was deposited. It was claimed that on the deposit of the first instalment the title of the land in dispute vested in him and hence he was entitled to compensation for the same.
(3.) Controverting the allegations of the tenant Angrej Singh the landowners averred that the order allowing purchase by Angrej Singh was appealable and is in fact the subject matter of an appeal before the appellate authority. It was further contended that in C.W.P. No. 1941 of 1964, Harnam Singh and others v. F.C. and others, decided on 21st August, 1969, this Court has directed that the case relating to the declaration of surplus area be decided afresh by the revenue authorities.