SHAKUNTLA DEVI ADOPTED DAUGHTER OF SHRIMATI SARA DEVI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HARYANA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, CHANDIGARH, AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition challenges the order of the Prescribed Authority issued on 25.05.1979 declaring the properties in the hands of Sara Devi wife of Deva Singh as being attracted to the provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act of 1972. The landowner had herself made a declaration form on 13.08.1976 and it was assessed that an extent of 78 kanals-4 marlas were to be treated as surplus. Before the Prescribed Authority, the landowner Sara Devi wanted to contend that half share of the property had belonged to his adopted daughter Shakuntla Devi and relied on a decree said to have been passed. The Prescribed Authority rejected this contention and it is this order that is in challenge before this Court.

(2.) The writ petition is filed by Shakuntla Devi claiming herself to be an owner of half share in the property by virtue of a Civil Court decree and contending that the adjudication made without involving the petitioner in the proceedings was void and non est and could not bind her. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relies on several decisions of this Court and of the Honourable Supreme Court to contend that any adjudication made without notice to the party who is likely to be affected, will be bad in law. The counsel, therefore, sought for remand of the matter before the competent authority for an adjudication regarding her entitlement. The petitioner has had the proceedings stayed and before the arguments got under way, I requested the learned senior counsel to show to me prima facie case of her entitlement before the case could be remanded to the authority for a fresh adjudication. The learned counsel contends that the decree itself provides for a half share and the moment the authority was informed of the decree, he ought to have served a notice on the petitioner before undertaking adjudication.

(3.) The land reform legislation has an important social objective to fulfill. The Directive Principles of State policy recognise that there has been an economic concentration of wealth and the State policies must be so taken to allow for equitable redistribution of such wealth. The right to property itself is no longer a fundamental right and all that is necessary is that before a person is deprived of the property, there should be a law which would allow for such deprivation. The land ceiling laws are one such class of legislation that provide for delimiting the extent of holding of the landowner and vesting the extent held in excess with the State to allow for a pool of surplus for redistribution to bring about social and economic equality. The interpretation of these legislations shall, therefore, be to serve the constitutional goals and cannot be merely mechanical. I state this in the context of powerful pleas made by the learned senior counsel that the preponderance of authorities of this Court have been that a transferee shall be served with notices, no matter that the transferee may not have a valid defence. I would take this to be a rather strange argument, for, a remand is never a matter of luxury for a party to demand and secure. On the other hand, the remand shall be to render an adjudication on what is absolutely essential and what cannot be dealt with by this Court itself.