Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1160 (PNJ)

Dharam Singh v. State Of Haryana

2002-10-30

N.K.SODHI

body2002
Judgment N.K.Sodhi, J. 1. This order will dispose of two writ petitions 2009 and 2040 of 1983 in which common questions of law and fact arise. Since arguments were heard in civil writ petition 2009 of 1983 the facts are being taken from this case. 2. Balwant Singh father of the petitioners was a big landowner in village Rudrol, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani. By two registered gift deeds dated 16.10.1956 he transferred all his area in favour of his ten sons who are the petitioners in this case. The Prescribed Authority, Charkhi Dadri under the Pepsu Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (for short the Pepsu Act) ignored transfers made in favour of the petitioners and considering the entire area as the ownership of Balwant Singh, declared 143-5/8 Ordinary Acres of land as surplus in his hands by order dated 8.12.1960. Section 32-E of the Pepsu Act provides that surplus area shall be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government for a public purpose with effect from the date on which possession thereof is taken by or on behalf of the State Government and all rights, title and interest in the surplus land shall vest in the State Government. The compensation to be paid for the land had been determined under Section 32-G of the Pepsu Act and Balwant Singh accepted Rs. 1665.79 as part of the compensation on 22.5.1961. In the year 1977 the petitioners filed an application before the Prescribed Authority under Section 8 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Haryana Act) with a prayer that since the transfer made in their favour was prior to 30.7.1958 the same was valid and could not be ignored by the Prescribed Authority while declaring surplus area in the hands of their father and, therefore, the land be released from the surplus pool. The application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on 2.6.1978 and feeling aggrieved by this order, Dharam Singh one of the petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector, Bhiwani who dismissed the same by order dated 3.1.1979. The petitioners then filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Act challenging the order of the Prescribed Authority and that of the Collector. The petitioners then filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Act challenging the order of the Prescribed Authority and that of the Collector. The learned Financial Commissioner found that since possession of the surplus land had in fact been taken by the State Government on 5.1.1963 the land vested in the State Government in terms of Section 32-E of the Pepsu Act. He also found that the land was allotted to some eligible tenants but they did not take possession of the same and, therefore, the land came in the possession of the petitioners. The Financial Commissioner found that the State Government was the owner of the surplus land and that it was not necessary for it to take possession only through eligible tenants. It was also found that since possession of the surplus land was actually taken by the State Government the protection given by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Haryana Act was not available to the petitioners. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed on 21.3.1983. It is against these orders mat the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. I have heard counsel for the parties and find no merit in the writ petitions. The argument of Shri R.S. Mittal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners is that actual possession of surplus land had not been taken by the State Government and, therefore, the land did not vest in the State Government and that the Prescribed Authority ought to have accepted the transfers made in favour of the petitioners as valid as they were made prior to 30.7.1958 and should have exempted the land from the surplus pool in terms of Section 8(1) of the Haryana Act. The argument of Shri Mittal would have carried some weight if the possession of the land had not been taken by the State Government. As found by the learned Financial Commissioner actual physical possession of the land had been taken from the land owner on 5.1.1963 and an entry in this regard was made in the daily roznamcha at serial No. 135 copy of which is Annexure P-l with the writ petition. As found by the learned Financial Commissioner actual physical possession of the land had been taken from the land owner on 5.1.1963 and an entry in this regard was made in the daily roznamcha at serial No. 135 copy of which is Annexure P-l with the writ petition. Since possession of the surplus land was taken by the State Government the same vested in it under Section 32-E of the Pepsu Act free from all encumbrances and the learned Financial Commissioner was right in holding that it was not necessary for the State Government to take possession only through eligible tenants. This land thus became available to the State Government for allotment to the eligible tenants. It was in fact allotted to some tenants who did not accept the allotment and merely because the tenants did not accept the allotment and merely because the tenants did not take possession of the land allotted to them it does not mean that the land ceased to be in the ownership of the State Government. If one set of tenants did not accept the same it could be allotted by the State Government to some other eligible tenants. In the present case, the land owner had also accepted part of the compensation as fund by the revenue authorities. I have, therefore, no hesitation in upholding the order of the learned Financial Commissioner. In the result, there is no merit in the writ petitions and the same stand dismissed with no order as to costs.