OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has impugned the order of the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala dated August 19, 1980, affirming on revision the order of the Additional Collector, Ambala dated September 7-1979, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The facts lie in narrow compass: Tikka Rattan Anmol Singh was a big landowner. Petitioner Nos. I to 3 purchased land measuring 4 Kanals 13 Marlas from Tikka Rattan Anmol Singh, vide registered sale deed dated January 29, 1960 for valuable consideration. They are not related to the big landowner. Petitioner Nos. I to 3 sold 1/2 of the land purchased from Tikka Rattan Anmol Singh to petitioner No. 4, vide registered sale deed dated February 9, 1960, who too is not related to Tikka Rattan Anmol Singh. The land found surplus with Tikka Rattan Anmol Singh was mutated in favour of the State Government. Proceedings for utilisation of the surplus land were initiated under the Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme and some land, including the land purchased by the petitioners, was allotted to respondent No. 5. The petitioners apprehending their dispossession moved the authorities for the benefit under the Instructions contained in Memo No. 5726AR(LA) 76/28819, dated September 15, 1976 issued by the Financial Commissioner & Secretary to Government, Haryana, Revenue Department. These Instructions postulated that all sales not exceeding 10 Standard Acres out of the land declared surplus under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, made to the vendees not related to the landowner within the prescribed degree, from April 15, 1953 upto and including April 15, 1966 shall not vest in the State Government and be not mutated in its favour. The authorities declined to grant-the concession allowable under these instructions.

(3.) In the written statement - filed on behalf of respondents I to 4, it, is not disputed that the petitioners are not related to Tikka Rattan Anmol Singh and that their holdings including the land purchased by them from Tikka Rattan Anmol Singh do not exceed 10 standard acres. The only objection pressed into service is that the petitioners did not apply to the competent authority for getting the disputed land taken out of the, surplus pool under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and after the enforcement of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, the land had vested in the State Government with effect from January 24, 1971. It is unfortunate that the authorities did not appreciate that these Instructions were issued on September 15, 1976 and the purpose of issuing these Instructions is to grant relief to those landless vendees who had purchased surplus land from the big landowners upto the extent of 10 standard acres. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 did not appreciate the import of these Instructions. The land purchased by the petitioners could not vest in the State Government and could not be utilised for allotment to the ejected tenants under the Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme.