Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 917 (PNJ)

Shanti Devi v. State Of Haryana

2005-08-31

JASBIR SINGH

body2005
Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. The petition has been filed by the petitioner, with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari, to quash orders (Annexures P-1 to P-4). 2. It was case of the petitioner that, she had performed marriage with respondent No. 6, after enforcement of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 . Respondent No. 6 had a living wife, at that time, as such his marriage with the petitioner, was void, ab-initio. It was her further case that, she acquired 87 kanals of land, in the year 1970, in a civil courts decree. Without her notice, respondent No. 6, by showing her as a family member, filed a declaration form, for determination of surplus area, in which he had included land, which was ownership of the petitioner. The prescribed Authority declared 45 kanals and 8 marlas of land, with respondent No. 6, as surplus. Respondent No. 6 lost up to the Court of Commissioner in those proceedings. In the month of October, 1980, the petitioner came to know about the order and immediately she filed a revision petition against those orders (Annexure P-1 to P-3), before Respondent No. 2, who, by wrongly interpreting the definition of word "family", dismissed her revision petition, vide order dated 10.12.1982. Hence this revision petition. 3. Relevant portion of order dated 10.12.1982 (Annexure P-4), reads as under: 6. In fact, the important point raised by the counsel for the petitioners is whether Smt. Shanti Devi the second wife of Devi Ram should be treated as a member of the family of landowner Devi Ram and her land measuring 87 Kanals clubbed with the land of the family. It was stated during arguments that Smt. Gian Devi and Smt/ Shanti Devi the two wives of Devi Ram landowner acquired 87 kanals of land each under a Civil Court decree in year 1970 and a mutation was duly sanctioned in their favour. This land originally belonged to the father of Devi Ram petitioner. The definition of family given in the Ceiling Act,1972, according to Section 3(f) runs as follows: "family, means husband, wife and their minor children or any two or more of them...". In the impugned order both the wives have been treated as one for the purpose of this definition. This land originally belonged to the father of Devi Ram petitioner. The definition of family given in the Ceiling Act,1972, according to Section 3(f) runs as follows: "family, means husband, wife and their minor children or any two or more of them...". In the impugned order both the wives have been treated as one for the purpose of this definition. The main plank of the argument of the petitioners is that Ceiling Act, 1972 cannot over-ride the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act under which a second marriage during the life time of the first wife is void. I have carefully considered this plea. In my view Revenue Officers acting under the powers conferred on them under the Ceiling Act, 1972 are wholly concerned with the administration of the Act for the purpose of ceiling on holdings. As such they cannot be expected to sit in judgment on the validity of a marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 . In the instant case Devi Ram landowner held out in his declaration that Smt. Shanti Devi was his wife. Acting on this statement the Prescribed Authority treated Smt. Shanti Devi as his wife. In my opinion the Prescribed Authority acted correctly because he was neither empowered not competent to go into the intricate questions under the Hindu Marriage Law. It is the prerogative of the Civil Courts to go into these questions and their findings are binding on the revenue officers. Thus, unless there is a finding of a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction declaring that the marriage of Smt. Shanti Devi with Devi Ram landowner was void under the Hindu Marriage Act, there was nothing wrong in the Prescribed Authority accepting the statement on oath in the declaration of Devi Ram landowner at its face value, without going behind the statement, and inquiring into the circumstances and validity of the second marriage. I am, therefore, of the view that there is no impropriety or illegality in the order of the Prescribed Authority warranting my interference under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972. 4 It is apparent from records that the petitioner deliberately has not given her date of marriage with respondent No. 6. She has only stated that, she was married with respondent No. 6, after the enforcement of provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 5. 4 It is apparent from records that the petitioner deliberately has not given her date of marriage with respondent No. 6. She has only stated that, she was married with respondent No. 6, after the enforcement of provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 5. To show exact date of marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 6, on 23.3.2005, counsel for the petitioner sought time to file an affidavit, in that regard, when matter came up for hearing on 10.8.2005, counsel for the petitioner showed his inability of file affidavit, referred to above, on the ground that despite many letters written, the petitioner has failed to turn up, to supply requisite information. However, he again sought time to do the needful, as such matter was adjourned for today. Today also the situation remains the same. No affidavit regarding date of marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 6 has been filed and due to that, this Court draws an adverse inference against the petitioner. In view of this fact, argument that the petitioner was married with respondent No. 6, after the enforcement of provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 falls flat and is accordingly rejected. Otherwise also, it is apparent from records that, respondent No. 6/the big land owner filed a declaration form, under Section 9 of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972, wherein he had shown the petitioner along with his second wife, as a member of the family. Vide order dated 14.9.1979 (Annexure P-1), it was ordered by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Prescribed Authority that both the wives shall be treated as one after calculating area with respondent No. 6, 45 kanals and 8 marlas of land (c category) was declared surplus. He failed in, appeal and his revision was also dismissed by the Commissioner. 6. During arguments, it has transpired that those orders (Annexure P-1 to P-3) qua respondent No. 6 had become final. Counsel for the petitioner has also failed to show as to how the petitioner was entitled to retain the land measuring 87 kanals. It has also not been shown, as to whether the judgment and decree, on the basis of which she got the above mentioned land, was bona fide in nature or was a mere sham transaction to save surplus land with the big land owner. 7. It has also not been shown, as to whether the judgment and decree, on the basis of which she got the above mentioned land, was bona fide in nature or was a mere sham transaction to save surplus land with the big land owner. 7. In view of facts mentioned above, this petition fails and accordingly is dismissed. No order as to the costs.