JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral) - The writ petition challenges the orders passed by the authorities constituted under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter called, ‘the 1972 Act’). The point in issue is the effect of the provisions under Section 12(1) as to how reckoning of vesting of surplus land is to be construed in a situation where the landowner in whose hands the property was said to remain in excess of the ceiling area had actually died before the property was taken possession of by the State and succession had opened. To this effect, the question raised will have to be seen in the context of Section 8 of the Act that excepts certain transfers and dispositions that would not affect the surplus area. One of the exceptions is a survival of interest of heir by inheritance. 2. Some more facts would be necessary to understand the case in its full perspective. The landowner was one Ralla Singh also called as Ralla Ram, who had been proceeded with originally under the Security of Land Tenures Act and his holding was described to fall within surplus area by order dated 10.01.1961. This order was a subject of challenge in a writ petition before this court and this court by its order dated 21.10.1969 set aside the order of the Collector and directed a fresh consideration. When the consideration was so undertaken, it was noticed that there had been a large chunk of land that had been treated as banjar and, therefore, they were not required to be reckoned for the purpose of computation of the total holdings. The proceedings that would obtain relevance for us for consideration would be the order passed by the Commissioner on 31.01.1972 who directed that the Collector, Thanesar would decide the case on merits on the law applicable on the day, namely, on the day when he passed an order dated 31.01.1972 and also directed notice of hearing to various alienees of properties prior to 30.07.1958 and tenants who had been in possession as such on or after 15.04.1953. By the order passed on 14.06.1973, the Collector held on remand that he had served notices to transferees, but they failed to appear to make no reference about any notice to tenants. The Collector held 48 standard acres as falling as surplus area and that Form-F should be issued. By the order passed on 14.06.1973, the Collector held on remand that he had served notices to transferees, but they failed to appear to make no reference about any notice to tenants. The Collector held 48 standard acres as falling as surplus area and that Form-F should be issued. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would defy the State to say that no form- F issued subsequently. 3. Soon after the order was passed on 14.06.1973 and before the issue of form-F, the landowner Ralla Singh @ Ralla Ram died on 10.10.1973. It is the effect of his death that falls for consideration in this petition, for, the contention urged on behalf of the representatives of the deceased was that by virtue of Section 8 and Section 12(1), the property having fallen to succession, the holding must be reckoned in the hands of the legal heirs and the holding of Ralla Singh cannot be taken as relevant for the purpose of determination of surplus. The State view which prevailed with the authorities of the Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner through cryptic orders passed under P4, P5 and P6 were to the effect that since the death had been subsequent to the date when the Act come into force and when the declaration was made by the Collector, the death of the landowner was irrelevant. 4. The learned senior counsel referred me to the provisions under Section 12 as it existed on the day when the order of the Collector was made as per the directions of the Commissioner. The order passed by the Commissioner on 13.01.1992 declaring the property as surplus, no doubt was rendered at the time when the owner was still alive but the law as it existed at that time according to him made the vesting of surplus area to take effect only on the date on which possession was taken. Admittedly, possession had not been taken. Section 12 underwent a change through an amendment brought by Act 40 of 1976 w.e.f. 05.02.1976. Section 12(1) underwent a change in so far as the expression of vesting under the said provision was to take effect from the date on which it had been declared as such. 5. Admittedly, possession had not been taken. Section 12 underwent a change through an amendment brought by Act 40 of 1976 w.e.f. 05.02.1976. Section 12(1) underwent a change in so far as the expression of vesting under the said provision was to take effect from the date on which it had been declared as such. 5. The provisions before and after amendment is reproduced as under:- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pre amendment Post amendment ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “(1) The surplus area of a landowner shall, “(1) The surplus area of a landowner shall, on the date on which possession thereof is from the date on which it is declared as such, taken by or on behalf of the State be deemed to have been acquired by the Government, be deemed to have been State Government for a public purpose and acquired by the State Government for a all rights, title and interest including the public purpose on payment of amount contingent interest, if any, recognized by any thereafter provided and all rights, title and law, custom or usage for the time being in interest including the contingent interest, if force, of all persons in such area shall stand any, recognized by any law, custom or usage extinguished and such rights, title and for the time being in force, of all persons in interest shall vest in the State Government such area shall stand extinguished and such free from any encumbrance: rights, title and interest shall vest in the State Government free from any encumbrance; Provided ......... Provided ........... 2. ................” (2) ........ (3) The area declared surplus or tenant’s permissible area under the Punjab law and the area declared surplus under the Pepsu law, which has not so far vested in the State Government, shall be deemed to have vested in the State Government with effect from the appointed day and the area which may be so declared under the Punjab law or the Pepsu law after the appointed day shall be deemed to have vested in the State Government with effect from the date of such declaration. (4) .......” ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. The critical point therefore was whether it was necessary that the property had been taken possession till the year 1976 when the amendment substituted a different dispensation, namely, the relevance of the date when the declaration was made. (4) .......” ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. The critical point therefore was whether it was necessary that the property had been taken possession till the year 1976 when the amendment substituted a different dispensation, namely, the relevance of the date when the declaration was made. Expropriatory legislation such as land ceiling land by the very nature of things ought to take only as prospective. If there had been retrospective application, the statute itself ought to provide for the same. The retrospective application in so far as the ceiling law provides here is through what contained under Section 12(3) which is a distinct provision. Section 12(3) contemplates a situation of an area of land declared as surplus under the Punjab Law or Pepsu Law. The Punjab Law is defined under the Act as the law under the Security of Land Tenures Act and Pepsu Law is defined as Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act of 1955 by the definitions contained under Section 2(p) and 2(k) respectively. In respect of any property that was declared as surplus under the Punjab Law or Pepsu Law, the property shall be deemed to be vested from the appointed day. The appointed day under the Act was 24.01.1971. The retrospectively of the Act is, therefore, specifically provided under Section 12(3) only in relation to the property that was declared as surplus under anyone of the two laws. We have already seen in this case a property that was declared as surplus in the year 1961 under Punjab Law was a subject of challenge before this court and the landowner had the benefit of his challenge being upheld and the declaration quashed as such. If Section 12(3) therefore would not operate, the vesting could take place only under Section 12(1). We have already seen the difference between Section 12(1) as it existed on the date when the Collector passed an order on 31.01.1972 which referred to the date on which possession was taken as relevant for a surplus area. If the property had not been taken possession, then if the landowner had also died, Section 8 must be given its full play. Section 8 sets out different circumstances when certain transfers and dispensations would not affect the surplus area. It is a trite law that succession cannot hang in vacuum and it would take effect the time when the landowner died. Section 8 sets out different circumstances when certain transfers and dispensations would not affect the surplus area. It is a trite law that succession cannot hang in vacuum and it would take effect the time when the landowner died. If the landowner died on 10.10.1973 and the property not having been taken possession of by the State, the succession open immediately to the legal heirs and granted to each one of them, the benefit of survival of interest to the extent to which the Hindu Succession Act provided. The holding in such an event could be reckoned only in the hands of the legal heirs and the holding of the original landowner would not become relevant. This position has been considered by this court in Kehar Singh (deceased) through his LRs Versus Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and another- 2012(1) PLR 95 . This court has held that pendency of the proceedings itself would preserve to the legal heirs a right to obtain a fresh reckoning when inheritance secured individual shares to each of the heirs. The decisions of the authorities have not actually adverted to the effect of Section 8 and Section 12(1), points which had been urged in reasonable detail in the grounds of appeal and revision. The authorities had worn blinkers not to be prepared to examine any of the grounds but swept under carpet the argument with a wild observation that there was no merit for consideration. The Commissioner’s wisdom was originally to direct a fresh reckoning in the light of the law as contained in its directions under Annexure P1 on 31.01.1972, but chose to bury it fathoms deep at the second round when his successor came to pass an order under Annexure P5. There has been literally no consideration of the effect of these provisions. 7. The impugned proceedings are quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The authorities may take the declaration of the legal heirs of the original landowner under Section 9 taking note of the succession that has opened and proceed to make a fresh determination in accordance with law. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————