Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 751 (PNJ)

State Of Haryana v. Birsala

2003-05-20

G.S.SINGHVI, N.K.SUD

body2003
Judgment G.S.Singhvi, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 30.9.1992 of the learned Single Judge allowing C.W.P. No. 3020 of 1980 filed by the respondents for quashing order dated 21.7.1980 passed by Sub Divisional officer (Civil), Narwana for allotment of their surplus area to eligible persons. 2. The facts: By an order dated 27.4.1961, the Collector, Agrarian, Sonepat determined the surplus area case of petitioner No. 1 under Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1953 and held that he had surplus area to the tune of 12 Standard Acres. Petitioner No. 1 did not challenge that order, but after a gap of 11 years, he filed an application for re-consideration of that order. The same was rejected by the Collector vide his order dated 15.6.1972. Appeal filed against that order was dismissed by Commissioner, Hisar. Division, Hisar vide his order dated 19.8.1974 and revision filed by petitioner No. 1 was dismissed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana vide order dated 29.9.1975 (Annexure R2). Thereafter, by an order dated 21.7.1980, Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Narwana allotted the surplus land of the petitioners to the eligible persons. The respondents challenged orders dated 27.5.1961 and 21.7.1980 in C.W.P. No. 3020 of 1991 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge with the following observations; "The surplus area as contended by the petitioners counsel, has to be determined under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act (26 of 1972) before it is utilised for allotment of eligible persons. This plea could not be controverted by the State counsel. Admittedly, on the commencement of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holding Act, the petitioner No. 1 was in possession of the area declared surplus under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1953 and the surplus area has to be determined under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act. Allotment of surplus land to the alleged eligible persons under the impugned order dated July 21, 1980 cannot be sustained before it is re-determined under the Haryana ceiling on Land Holding Act." 3. Shri Jaswant Singh invited our attention to the judgments of a Division Bench of this Court in Bharat Bhushan v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1990 P.L.J. 563 and of the Supreme Court in Smt. Bhagwanti Devi and Anr. Shri Jaswant Singh invited our attention to the judgments of a Division Bench of this Court in Bharat Bhushan v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1990 P.L.J. 563 and of the Supreme Court in Smt. Bhagwanti Devi and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr., 1994 P.L.J. 245 and Sampuran Singh v. The State of Haryana and Ors., (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 423 (S.C.) and argued that the surplus area case of the land holder is not required to be determined under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 (for short, the 1972 Act) simply because the surplus land remained unutilised at the time of commencement of the said Act. He further argued that the learned Single Judge was not justified in quashing order dated 21.7,1980 because the original order passed by Collector, Agrarian had merged in the subsequent order passed by the Collector, Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar and Financial Commissioner and the petitioners had not challenged those orders. 4. Shri R.S. Mittal could not put forward any tangible argument to support the order under challenge. 5. We have gone through the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Deputy Advocate General and agree with him that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is legally unsustainable. In Bhagwanti Devis case (supra), the Supreme Court negatived the argument that the surplus area of the land owner is required to be determined under the 1972 Act if the surplus land remains in the hands of the land owner and observed: "No doubt under 1953 Act, there is no specific provision which provided for vesting of the surplus lands, declared thereunder. The Collector had power to take possession of the surplus lands and utilise them under East Punjab Utilisation of Lands Act, 1949, by their allotment to the tenants for cultivation. But for the exemption granted under Rule 8 of the Rules, the appellants had no right to remain in possession. Having got the benefit of Rule 8 and remained in possession of the surplus land and utilised the same for the purpose of cultivation in a modern farm, it is not open to the appellants to contend that the land having remained unutilised and continued to be in their possession and enjoyment, Section 12(3) does not divest them of their title. The language of Section 12(3) is unequivocal and clear. The language of Section 12(3) is unequivocal and clear. According to it, the surplus lands declared under the Act stand vested in the state. Even otherwise, the non-utilisation of surplus land till date of vesting, i.e., on December 23, 1972 is not material. The object of the Act and Section 12(3) of 1972 Act was redistribution of surplus land among the landless ryots and agricultural labour and to confer title on them. The Act enabled the owner of the surplus land to recover rent from the lessee and enjoy the income till the date of vesting and no more. Section 32 of the Haryana act admittedly declared all exemptions under Rule 8 is of no avail w.e.f, January 24, 1971 in that it expressly states thus: "As from the appointed day exemption granted in relation to the utilisation of surplus area under orchards, tea-estates or well-run farms by virtue of the provisions of the Rules framed or purported to have been framed under the Punjab Law, shall stand withdrawn." Therefore, from the appointed day the possession held by appellants of surplus lands become unlawful and entitles the Collector or competent officer to resume possession of them from appellants. Neither Section 12(3) nor Sections 7 and 9 of the Haryana Act empower the ceiling authority to reopen the proceedings relating to surplus lands which had become final is also made clear by Section 33(2)(ii) thereof. Section 33(2)(ii) says that the surplus area determined in the pending proceedings under the act shall be done under that Act and surplus land shall vest in and be utilised by the State Government in accordance with the provisions of the 1972 Act. Sub-section 2(ii) of Section 33, no doubt, deals with determination of surplus area pending proceeding under the Punjab Law as on the notified date and vesting of the surplus area so determined in the state. The legislative intendment, therefore, appears to be that the surplus area declared under the Haryana Act since the permissible area was reduced from 30 standard acres to 171/2 acres, that surplus area should be determined under Section 7 read with Section 9. Therein if a son becomes major and resides separately he is entitled to a separate unit etc. However, it does not appear that the surplus area declared under the Punjab Law should be reopened and recomputed under 1972 Haryana Act. Therein if a son becomes major and resides separately he is entitled to a separate unit etc. However, it does not appear that the surplus area declared under the Punjab Law should be reopened and recomputed under 1972 Haryana Act. No such express provision was engrafted in 1972 Act. Though the family of the appellants have swelled and some of the minors have become majors, the appellants are not entitled to have surplus area which had become final reopened for recomputation under the 1972 Haryana Act." The same view was reiterated in Sampuran Singh s case (supra). 6. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it must be held that the surplus area case of the respondents was not required to be re-determined under the 1972 act simply because the surplus land had remained unutilised as on the cut-off date, i.e., 24.1.1971 specified in the 1972 Act and the direction given by the learned Single Judge cannot be upheld. 7. Hence, the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondents is dismissed.