RAM NARAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated May 28, 1980 reversing the order of the Collector (Agrarian), Sonepat, dated February 17, 1978, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that petitioner No. 1 Ram Narain was holding land measuring 531 Kanals, 19 Marlas and out of this land, 1/2 land was transferred to his sons of petitioners No. 2 and 3. On December 28, 1954, regarding which mutation No. 694 had also been sanctioned on July 23, 1955. Collector (Agrarian), Rohtak vide his order dated January 23, 1960 declared 17 Std. acres units as surplus land with them while determining the surplus land with him. While determining the surplus area, he ignored the provision of Section 10-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, according to which the transfer of land in excess of the permissible area made before July 30, 1958 was to be protected. The transfer of land to petitioners No. 2 and 3 could not be counted for determining the total holding of the landowner. Petitioner No. 1 moved a petition under Section 8 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short, the Ceiling Act) before the Collector (Agrarian), Sonepat, praying that the benefit of the transfer be given to him. The Collector (Agrarian) allowed the petition vide his order dated September 7, 1977 and declared him a small Landowner. The concluding petition of the English translation of his order reads thus :

(3.) This factual position has not been controverted by the State. I am not impressed by the overzealousness shown by the Financial Commissioner. It is correct that the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and the Ceiling Act were enacted to bring about agrarian reforms, the object of which is that the big landowners should part with their surplus land to the tillers of the soil. Their purpose is not confiscatory. The provisions of these enactments have to be strictly construed and the surplus area has to be demarcated in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. Section 10-A of this Act provides that the transfers made in excess of the permissible area before July 30, 1958 could not be ignored and these have to be excluded from the total holdings of the landowner for determining his surplus area. The Collector (Agrarian), Rohtak, while determining the permissible area of petitioner No. 1 vide his order dated January 23, 1960, declared 17.8 standard acres as surplus. He ignored the provisions of Section 10-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and treated the land transferred by petitioner No. 1 to petitioners No. 2 and 3 as his total holding. The transfers could not be ignored since these were made prior to July 30, 1958, and the land covered under the sale could not be included in the total holding of petitioner No. 1. If the Collector (Agrarian), Rohtak, had correctly understood the import of Section 10-A, he would not have ignored the transfers and held that land measuring 17 standard acres, 8 units was surplus with petitioner No. 1 This order of the Collector (Agrarian), Rohtak cannot be sustained. The mistake committed by Collector (Agrarian), Rohtak, was rectified by the Collector (Agrarian), Sonepat, vide his order dated September 7, 1977 on a petition moved by petitioner No. 1 under Section of the Ceiling Act. Collector (Agrarian), Sonepat correctly came to the conclusion that the transfer of land made by petitioner No. 1 in favour of his two sons, i.e., petitioners No. 2 and 3, prior to July 30, 1958, was protected and the land covered under those sales could not be included in the total holding of petitioner No. 1. The view taken by the Collector (Agrarian), Sonepat, is unexceptional and is in accord with the ratio of the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in State of Haryana and others v. Chandgi, 1981 PunLJ 494 where it was held thus :-