SURJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners pray for quashing orders dated 15.1.1979 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Prescribed Authority, Sirsa (Annexure P-1), dated 7.3.1983 passed by the Collector, Sirsa (Annexure P-3), dated 29.4.1983 passed by the Commissioner, Hissar Division, Hissar (Annexure P-5) and order dated 20.5.1985 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana (Annexure P-7). Counsel for the petitioners submits that Sangat Singh, paternal uncle of the petitioners was owner of land in Pakistan and he died in the year 1947 while migrating to India. The petitioners filed a claim for allotment of land in the name of Sangat Singh being his collaterals as Sangat Singh had no male issue. The petitioners were allotted 47 standard acres and 10 units of land in the name of Sangat Singh. Mutation No. 2319 of inheritance of Sangat Singh deceased was sanctioned in favour of petitioners on 8.1.1953. The petitioners obtained possession of land allotted to Sangat Singh in the year 1950. It is further contended that Smt. Sahib Kaur, daughter of Sangat Singh filed a civil suit in respect of the entire land allotted to Sangat Singh. In the civil suit, ultimately a compromise was effected and she was given a limited estate for her life in 2/5th share of the land allotted to Sangat Singh and accordingly a decree dated 22.10.1956 was drawn and mutation No. 2541 was sanctioned in favour of Smt. Sahib Kaur on 15.1.1962. It is further argued that Smt. Sahib Kaur had no issue and on 15.1.1979, the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Sirsa, prescribed authority under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1972 Act") determined her surplus area measuring 331 Kanais-10 Marlas. Smt. Sahib Kaur died on 25.4.1979, but Form-IV was prepared on 28.7.1979. The petitioners filed an appeal against order dated 15.1.1979 before the Collector, Sirsa which was dismissed on 7.3.1983. The revision petition filed by the petitioners against order of the Collector, Sirsa, was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Hissar Division, Hissar, on 29.4.1983. The petitioners filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, which was also dismissed vide order dated 20.5.1985. It is contended that the orders passed by the prescribed authority, Sirsa, the Appellate authority and the revisional authorities are illegal and liable to be set aside. It has further been submitted that Smt. Sahib Kaur did not have any right in the property of her father and she was only given a limited estate in view of the compromise effected before the Civil Court, therefore, she never became the absolute owner of the property and, therefore, no property, in her hands could be declared as surplus area. It has been further argued that the petitioners were the real owners of the land in respect of which mutation was sanctioned in favour of Smt. Sahib Kaur on 15.1.1962, therefore, the surplus area could not be determined without impleading them and affording an opportunity of hearing. It has been further argued that all the authorities have wrongly interpreted Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1956 Act") to hold that Sahib Kaur became absolute owner of the land under Section 14(1) of "the 1956 Act". It has also been submitted that no path has been provided to the land declared as permissible area of Smt. Sahib Kaur which has been inherited by the petitioners on her death.

(2.) Counsel for the State of Haryana, on the other hand, contends that as Smt. Sahib Kaur was allotted this land in lieu of her right of maintenance from the estate left behind by her father, the authorities under "the 1972 Act" have rightly held that the limited estate given to Smt. Sahib Kaur in view of the compromise effected between the parties before the civil Court, became her absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of "the 1956 Act". It is further argued that as Smt. Sahib Kaur was the absolute owner of this property, petitioners have no right to be heard in respect of declaration of surplus area in the hands of Smt. Sahib Kaur, decided by the competent authority. It is further argued that Smt. Sahib Kaur was given a notice providing her an opportunity of being heard before deciding her case of permissible and surplus area, but for the reasons known to Smt. Sahib Kaur, she did not contest the proceedings. The last submission made by learned counsel is that if no path is available to have an access to the permissible area allotted to Smt. Sahib Kaur, the petitioners can resort to appropriate remedy under law to seek the path.

(3.) We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.