Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1612 (PNJ)

Ram Saran v. State of Haryana

2012-11-15

RANJIT SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners claim themselves to be bonafide purchasers for consideration. As per the petitioners, no notice was served upon them while allotting this land to the respondents, which they had purchased. The petitioners accordingly have filed revision on 1.8.2011 under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short “Haryana Act”) for excluding their land in dispute from surplus pool. This petition came up for hearing on 17.8.2011 and was admitted. Status-quo in regard to possession was directed to be maintained. The arguments were finally heard on 5.9.2012 when the Financial Commissioner has directed the petitioners to approach the Collector. This is stated to be without appreciating the fact that the allotment of the land had already been set-aside in the year 1984 and only Financial Commissioner could grant relief as was sought in the revision in exercise of suo-motu powers under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Act. The petitioners accordingly have approached this court through the present writ petition. The facts, in brief, are that Bihari Lal and Gopi sons of Shera were the big landowners. The surplus area cases of these two landowners were decided by Collector Surplus Area, Sirsa on 7.9.1961. Commissioner had remanded the case and eventually the land at the hands of these big landowners was declared surplus on 16.11.1962. It is alleged that both the landowners had a third brother, named, Ram Chand, who was not the big landowner. It is accordingly alleged that their land holdings were required to be separated under Section 24-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short “Punjab Act”). The shares of the said landowners, however, were not separated and remained joint. It is alleged that the land continued to be recorded as joint ownership of the aforesaid landowners. Landowner Gopi sold 27 kanals and 12 marlas in favour of the petitioners out of his holding vide registered sale deed dated 15.1.1993. The petitioners claim to have been delivered possession of the land Rect.No.41, Killa No.18/2, 23/2, 24, 25 and Rect.No.40, Killa No.21. It was specifically mentioned in the sale deed that the land was free from all encumbrances and litigation. The petitioners claim to have been delivered possession of the land Rect.No.41, Killa No.18/2, 23/2, 24, 25 and Rect.No.40, Killa No.21. It was specifically mentioned in the sale deed that the land was free from all encumbrances and litigation. The mutation of the land so purchased was sanctioned on 11.8.1973 in favour of the petitioners and they were recorded as owners in possession of this land in jamabandi for the year 1975-76 and latest jamabandi for the year 2006-07. On 29.8.1980, the allotment authorities allotted some land to the allottees vide order dated 20.4.1978 and 29.8.1980 out of the joint holding. The authorities also tried to deliver possession of the same to the allottees. The land purchased by the petitioners was allotted to one Patram son of Lekh Ram, predecessor of respondent Nos.12 and 13. This was statedly done without any notice to the petitioners, though their names were duly mentioned in the allotment order (Annexure P-7). Sons of landowner Bihari Lal filed a civil suit challenging the said allotment on 11.10.1984. The plea was that one of their brother Ram Chand was not the big landowner and their holdings were required to be separated under Section 24-A of the Punjab Act, which had not been done. Sub Judge, Sirsa dismissed the suit on 25.5.1982. Appeal filed against this before Addl.District Judge, Sirsa was allowed on 11.10.1984. Some of the allottees filed RSA No.153 of 1985, but the same was dismissed on 3.8.2004 and, thus, the order passed by Addl.District Judge, Sirsa dated 11.10.1984 was upheld. It is accordingly pleaded that the allotment of the land became redundant. Despite the above position, it is alleged that no action was taken under Section 24-A of the Punjab Act. Suddenly, however, respondent Nos.10 and 11 moved an application before SDO(Civil)-Cum-Allotment Authority on 3.5.2011 for delivery of the possession of the land in dispute on the ground that the same was allotted to their predecessor Patram son of Lekh Raj in the year 1980. It is alleged that Form U.S.- 3 though was issued to the allottee on the same day of allotment, but he never deposited even the first instalment of the compensation of the land in dispute and till date no instalment was fixed by respondent No.2. It is stated that the allotment in their favour would deem to have been automatically cancelled. It is stated that the allotment in their favour would deem to have been automatically cancelled. It is accordingly urged that the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for no fault on their part. It is urged that the land could be deemed to be held by respondent Nos.5 to 11 and equivalent land out of their holdings should have been taken in the surplus pool. The Division Bench of the Financial Commissioner had simply remanded the case back to the Collector and the reasons in this regard would be found recorded in order dated 22.2.2012 in ROR No.429-430 of 2009 filed by the State of Haryana. In order (Annexure P-15), it is observed that order dated 12.10.19878 passed by the prescribed authority had attained finality, after having been upheld right upto the High Court. On this basis, it is observed that there was no ground for the Collector to intervene in this case. The Division Bench of the Financial Commissioner, thus, found that the order passed by the Collector on 23.9.1990, resulted into saving the surplus area and, prima facie, appeared to be motivated and to bring this order under cloud of suspicion. The Division Bench of the Financial Commissioner accordingly considered it appropriate to intervene and accepted the plea taken by the State that there has been a fraudulent act as a result of connivance between the private parties which needed to be corrected. The case was accordingly remanded to the Collector Surplus Area, Sirsa to decide the same afresh after hearing all the parties and keeping in view the pleas taken by the petitioners. Since it is an order of remand only, no case for interference would be made out. It was rightly observed that the land of the big landowner declared surplus under the new law would vest in the State Government. This land had been utilised under the Haryana Utilization Scheme. The tenant was, therefore, required to deposit in the State Treasury 10 equal annual instalments the compensation of the surplus area allotted to them. No case for interference in this order apparently is made out. The counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Mohan Singh (dead) through Kirpal Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2010 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 497. No case for interference in this order apparently is made out. The counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Mohan Singh (dead) through Kirpal Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2010 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 497. I have not been able to appreciate how this judgment would support the case of the petitioners as pleaded in this petition. In this judgment, this court has categorically held that the land of a big landowner declared surplus under the Punjab Act would stand vested in the State of Haryana on 24.1.1971 in terms of Section 12 (3) of Haryana Act and that the State had a right to utilise the area which formed part of the surplus pool. It is further held that declaration of the surplus area under the Punjab Act would vest under the Haryana Act and the same cannot be reopened and transferee is not entitled to any notice before Utilization. It is observed that provisions of the Haryana Act are applicable only to surplus area case to be decided under the said Act and not under the Punjab Act. The area declared surplus under the Punjab Act is to be governed by Section 33 of the Haryana Act and the surplus area proceedings cannot be reopened by taking benefit of the provisions of the Haryana Act. The counsel, thus, cannot seek any support from this judgment. Order passed by the civil court had only permitted the authorities to utilise the suit land afresh after completion of proceedings contained in Section 14 of the Act of 1972 and nothing more. No case for interference in the remand order, therefore, is made out. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.