Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1785 (PNJ)

Jai Chand Lal v. State of Haryana

2011-09-22

K.KANNAN

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J.: (Oral) - The petitioners challenge the order of allotment made to certain persons claiming to be tenants and landless persons under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act of 1972. This order came to be passed on 13.03.1981 in relation to the property of the petitioners that was said to have been treated as surplus. The grievance of the petitioners is that prior to this order dated 13.03.1981, the Collector had dealt with objections of the petitioners as regards the computation of the ceiling area particularly with reference to a provision for a unit for a child that was said to have been born in the year 1961 and as regards the inclusion of certain properties which had been sold before 30.07.1958. 2. Adverting to these objections, the Collector had passed an order remanding the matter before the competent authority for proving the contentions of what were stated as objections relating to the declaration of surplus under the provisions of the Act. 3. After the writ petition was filed, the order of allotment has remained stayed. It is brought out in the written statement that the allotments have been made pursuant to the ascertainment of rights under Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and not under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. I do not think it can make a difference if we consider the fact that the order has been made only on 13.03.1981, that is, after the order was passed by the Collector on 09.03.1981. The first job shall be to assess the total holding after making due provision for exclusion of lands which were sold prior to 30.07.1958 and taking the holding, appropriate to the size of the family. If the total holding is seen to be beyond the permissible area, the landowner shall be given the right to option to decide on the holding that he would choose to retain. It is stated that such a declaration has already been given, but in the manner of reckoning if there exists any change that results in a different extent as available for surplus, the petitioner shall be at liberty to make a modification with reference to the statement already given. It is stated that such a declaration has already been given, but in the manner of reckoning if there exists any change that results in a different extent as available for surplus, the petitioner shall be at liberty to make a modification with reference to the statement already given. The impugned order of allotment dated 13.03.1981 is set aside and the competent authority shall proceed to decide the case on the basis of direction contained by the order of the Collector, Sirsa, dated 09.03.1981 in accordance with law. 4. The party shall appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sirsa, without any fresh notice on 22.10.2011. 5. The writ petition is disposed of. ————————