JAI KISHAN DASS Vs. HARYANA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are in second appeal. They had filed a suit alleging that the orders dated 11.2.1982 and 21.6.1982 of the Prescribed Authority, Panipat and the Collector, Karnal treating the land in question as part of the compensation pool under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short, 'the 1972 Act') are illegal, void and without jurisdiction. It was pleaded that the land in dispute originally belonged to one Shiv Charan Dass son of Shri Chhaju Ram, who transferred the same before the consolidation proceedings were effected in the village to Har Chand son of Makhan and few others vide sale deed dated 8.5.1964 for a sum of Rs. 7000/-. The mutation was also sanctioned. The land in question was subsequently allotted to the vendees in view of the land purchased. Har Chand son of Makhan etc. sold away a part of this land in favour of Diwan Chand son of Gokal Chand vide sale deed dated 8.7.1964. Lakhi son of Har Chand and others also sold away the remaining land vide sale deed dated 9.7.1964 in favour of Diwan Chand son of Gokal Chand. The remaining vendees, i.e., Achhpal and others, sold their shares of land in favour of Bhagwan Dass vide sale deed dated 16.10.1963. Thus, Bhagwan Dass and Diwan Chand became sole owners of the land in question. Subsequently, Diwan Chand sold away the land purchased in favour of Ganga Dayal, Sahugan Chand and Om Parkash etc. for a consideration of Rs. 1000/- vide sale deed dated 14.7.1966. Similarly, Bhagwan Dass also sold his share of land to Ganga Dayal etc. for Rs. 1800/- vide sale deed dated 23.9.1966. Thereafter, Gangal Dayal, Om Pakash, Shugan Chand etc. and heirs of Kishori Lal, sold the land in suit along with other land in favour of the plaintiffs and the persons, who were arrayed as defendant Nos. 2 and 3 for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/- vide sale deed dated 23.9.1973.

(2.) It was, thus, averred that the original owner - Shiv Charan Dass had sold the land in dispute on 28.5.1954 much before the appointed date for the purposes of the 1972 Act, i.e., 30.7.1958 and, therefore, the same could not be treated as surplus in his hands and consequently, was exempt from the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for brevity, 'the 1953 Act') and the 1972 Act. It was further averred that in view of the above, the sales including the one in favour of the plaintiffs was also exempt from the purview of the Act. The orders of the authorities under the Act were, therefore, sought to be declared as null & void.

(3.) The State of Haryana, i.e., respondent No. 1, disputed the averments of the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that the civil Court had no jurisdiction as the plaintiffs had option to go in appeal against the order of the Collector, Karnal before the Commissioner and thereafter, before the Financial Commissioner. It was further pleaded that the land in dispute already stood utilized and physical possession was given to the allottees on 28.5.1981. It was averred that on 15.4.1983, Shiv Charan Dass was a big land owner having 127 standard acres and I-Unit of land and the Special Collector, Punjab, Chandigarh had declared 97 standard acres and I-Unit of land as surplus after giving him benefit of 30 standard acres for his self cultivation. The suit land was stated to be this surplus land and the possession of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 thereon was denied. It was pleaded that the persons arrayed as defendant Nos. 4 & 5 were in possession of the same as the allotment had been made in their favour. It was next pleaded that after the land having been declared surplus, the same stood vested in the State Government and after the enforcement of the 1972 Act, the same stood utilized as per the scheme framed thereunder. Reliance was placed on Section 8(1) of the 1972 Act to say that the transactions which took place after 30.7.1958 or up to 15.4.1966 are not in accordance with law and are invalid transactions. It was averred that Section 8(1) of the 1972 Act only applies to the proceedings which are pending and does not apply to the proceedings which are already concluded. It was further averred that since the surplus proceedings in the instant case were concluded when these transactions took place, the exemption clause would not apply.