STATE OF PUNJAB (NOW HARYANA) AND, ORS. vs AMAR SINGH AND ANOTHER

The Supreme Court held that under Section 10A of the relevant Act, consent orders cannot circumvent public policy aimed at regulating surplus land. The Court emphasized that the statutory authority must be satisfied regarding the bona fides of any purchase under Section 18, which allows tenants with continuous occupation for six years to purchase land. The Court found that the leases in question were collusive and aimed at reducing the surplus area unlawfully, thus upholding the Collector's determination of surplus area and rejecting the High Court's ruling that ignored the purchase orders.