MAMO Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the daughters and widow of one Phul Singh against the order dated 31.1.1961 whereby land measuring 40.11-1/2 standard acres was declared surplus in the hands of Phul Singh. It is the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid order was made without notice to Phul Singh and was therefore void. It has been asserted that the said Phul Singh died on 13.2.1973 and on his death, the petitioners succeeded to his property in equal shares in view of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. It has also been asserted that as the land had not been utilised despite having been declared surplus vide order dated 31.1.1961, the petitioners were entitled to have it re-assessed in their hand.

(2.) Notice of Motion was issued in this case for 12.9.80 and stay of dispossession was also ordered. The case was thereafter adjourned on a number of occasions and was ultimately admitted on 28.10.1980 and the stay order granted was also allowed to continue. In reply to the assertions made in the petition, the stand of the respondents is that the land in the hands of Phul Singh was declared surplus after due notice to him and he had selected a reserved area also on the basis of a statement made by him before the Collector, Karnal on 12.10.1960. It has also been asserted that the land already stood utilised as the same had vested in the State Government under Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act). It has also been stated that as Phul Singh had died on 13.2.1973 i.e. after coming into force of the Act, the said land was not required to be re-assessed.

(3.) After hearing the counsel for the respondents, I find no merit in the writ petition. It is an admitted case that the land was declared surplus as far back as in 1961 and no further action was taken at any stage by the original landowner or any of his successors to have the order set aside. Even in the present proceedings, a copy of the order dated 31.1.1961 has not been appended with the writ petition, although an averment has been made that it would be appended in due course. I am of the opinion that in the absence of the impugned order, a writ of certiorari cannot be issued.