ZORA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 6438 and 7657 of 1990 as the same involved identical questions of fact and law. The facts, have, however, been extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 6438 of 1990.

(2.) One Jasmer Singh, father of the petitioner owned and possessed 593 Bighas and 15 Biswas of land in village Bhangera, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Ambala now Yamuna Nagar. Out of the aforesaid land, area measuring 284 Bighas 19 Biswas comprised in Khasra numbers fully detailed in paragraph 3 of the petition was declared surplus vide orders passed by the Collector on that behalf on 26.6.1990. Consolidation of holdings took place in the village in the year 1961 and the land declared surplus was not separated from surplus area after consolidation operation as required under Section 24A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1953). Jasmer Singh has three sons namely Zora Singh, Kashmira Singh and Balbir Singh. Whereas Zora Singh and Kashmira Singh were from one mother Smt. Ishar Kaur and Balbir Singh was born out of second wife Smt. Suraj Kaur. Inasmuch as there used to be disputes between the father and the sons about the property in the year 1958, they arrived at a family settlement through a registered transfer deed dated 29.4.1958 through which Jasmer Singh transferred 3/4th share of his land to his three sons in equal shares. Possession of the respective shares was also transferred to the petitioner and his two brothers. Mutation No. 595 was entered on the basis of the deed aforesaid, which was sanctioned on 18.8.1958. After consolidation, petitioner was given exclusive possession of the land so mentioned in paragraph 6 of the petition. Brothers and their father got their shares partitioned and got separate land. The case of the petitioner is that even though he was so recorded to be the owner in all the revenue records, no notice was given to him in the year 1960 when the surplus area case of Jasmer Singh was under consideration and was consequently decided. On that count, it is pleaded that the order declaring the land of Jasmer Singh as surplus was void and ineffective in so far as it was concerned with the rights of the petitioner. However, after the enactment of Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1972), respondent Nos. 6 to 9 tried to take possession and it is then that the petitioner made an application to the prescribed Authority under Section 8 of the Act of 1972 saying therein that the land in dispute had been transferred to him before 30.7.1958 and as such it could not be utilised to resettle the tenants under Section 8(1)(a) of the Act of 1972 and that it could not vest in the Government under Section 12(3) of the aforesaid Act. The Prescribed Authority was, however, not impressed with the aforesaid contention and dismissed the application vide orders dated 8.12.1983. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, but the same, too, met the same fate and was accordingly dismissed vide orders dated 1.6.1988. The petitioner did not leave the matter there and carried second revision before the Financial Commissioner, but the same, too, was dismissed vide orders dated 26.12.1989, which is said to have been conveyed to the petitioner in January 1990. It is the aforesaid orders which have been challenged in the present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) It is mainly pleaded that when the petitioner was recorded as owner in all the revenue records he was entitled to be issued a notice before land could be declared surplus under the Act of 1953. It is also canvassed that the pre-consolidation area which was declared surplus was not separated and was, thus, not identifiable which had necessarily to be done as enjoyed by Section 24-A of the Act of 1953. In any case, it is contended that inasmuch as the land declared surplus was not identified, the same could not be allotted. Lastly, it is sought to be made out that the transfer in the present case was admittedly prior to 30.7.1958 and was, therefore, protected under Section 8 of the Act of 1972.