BHOPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bhopal Singh seeks quashing of the proceedings initiated by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Panipat exercising the powers of the Prescribed Authority under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act which have been initiated so as to dispossess him from the land purchased by him.

(2.) Brief facts that need to be noticed are that one Bhullan son of Harnam was presumably owner of land in excess of permissible limit as is prescribed under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1953). On 11.6.1954, aforesaid big landowner gifted away his land in favour of his seven sons namely Raghbir, Jai Singh, Moola, Sulfi, Antu, Nehru and Ramphal. Mutation in respect of gift was duly entered in the revenue records. The land, thus, stood transferred in favour of his sons Raghbir etc. with effect from 11.6.1954. The petitioner is a vendee from one of the sons of Bullan namely Raghbir. He purchased only 4 Kanals 9 Marlas of land entered in Killa No. 53/20/3 in the year 1977. The aforesaid sale was evidenced by registered sale deed. The case of petitioner is that physical possession of land was taken by him on transfer of the land and he continues to be in possession of the same till date. The land of Bhullan, however, without issuing any notice to Raghbir was declared surplus and Killa No. 53/20/3 that came to the share of Raghbir under the gift, mention of which has been made above, also came under the land which was declared surplus. Considering the aforesaid land to be surplus in the hands of Bhullan attempt was made to take possession of the land and it is at that stage, the case of the petitioner is, that he came to know that the same has been declared surplus way back in the year 1963. Being apprehensive that a small piece of land purchased by him would be taken possession of and allotted to eligible tenants, he has approached this Court for the relief indicated above by way of filing the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The solitary point pleaded and pressed into service by Shri Y.K. Sharma, for the petitioner, is that even though the fact of gift came to be duly recorded in the revenue record and was known to the authorities concerned yet no notice was given to Raghbir. As referred to above, the land of Bhullan was declared surplus in the year 1963 i.e. about nine years after the gift was made in favour of Raghbir. The learned Counsel contends that under Rule 6 notice to transferee is mandatory while determining the surplus area of a landowner and non-grant of an opportunity of hearing renders the orders declaring the surplus area to be illegal. For the aforestated stand, the learned Counsel relies upon Smt. Ankauri and another v. Financial Commissioner and others, 1971 PunLJ 570.