JANGA Vs. ZORA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 108 and 109 of 1993 as they involve identical questions of law and fact. For the sake of convenience the facts are being taken from LPA 108 of 1993.

(2.) THIS appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated September 4, 1992 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby Civil Writ Petitions 6438 and 7657 of 1990 were allowed and the order of the revenue authority set aside holding that Zora Singh, Jagdip Singh and Sunder Harpal Singh were entitled to get their land excluded under Section 8 of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972. Jasmer Singh father of the writ petitioner was a big land-owner owning 593 bighas and 15 biswas of land. By an order dated 26.6.1960 the prescribed authority declared 284 bighas and 13 biswas of land as surplus in the hands of Jasmer Singh. This order has since become final because it was never challenged by any one in appeal or in revision before any of the higher authorities. Jasmer Singh had three sons namely Zora Singh, Kashmira Singh and Balbir Singh. He divided his land in four equal parts and gave three equal parts to his sons namely Zora Singh, Kashmira Singh and Balbir Singh by a family settlement through transfer deed dated 26.4.1958 which was registered on 29.4.1958. The possession of the respective shares was also transferred to the writ petitioner and his two brothers. Mutation No. 595 was entered on the basis of the aforesaid registered deed. The surplus land even though declared in June, 1960 had not been utilised by the State Government till the coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the year 1977 the State Government allotted the surplus land to the appellants herein who were the respondents in the writ petition. When they took steps to take possession of the allotted land, two applications were moved before the prescribed authority under Section 8 of the Act, one by Zora Singh and the other by Jagdip Singh and Surinder Harpal Singh sons of Kashmira Singh. It was alleged that since the land was transferred to them by their father through a registered transfer deed prior to 30th of day of July 1958, therefore, the land in their possession was liable to be exempted from the surplus pool. Both the applications were dismissed by the prescribed authority holding that the surplus land had vested in the State Government on coming into force of the Act and, therefore, the surplus area proceedings which stood concluded in the year 1960 could not be re-opened. Feeling aggrieved by this order, Zora Singh and the other two applicants filed an appeal before the Collector, Ambala which was dismissed by order dated 24.2.1987. Still not satisfied the applicants went up in revision before the Commissioner Ambala Division which also met the same fate. The Commissioner observed that after the coming into force of the Act the land in dispute vested in the State Government and it was rightly allotted to the allottees (appellants herein) and, therefore, Zora Singh and the other two applicants could not get the surplus proceedings reopened. Zora Singh and the two applicants filed another revision petition before the Financial Commissioner which too was dismissed on 26.12.1989. It was then that Zora Singh and the two applicants filed CWP 6438 and 7657 of 1990 in this Court challenging the orders passed by the revenue authorities. Both these writ petitions came to be heard together and were allowed by the learned Single Judge who while relying on a Single bench judgment of this Court in Ajmer Singh v. The State of Haryana and Others, 1987 Revenue Law Reporter 563 : 1987 RRR 557 (P&H) observed that the land transferred by way of partition by a big landowner prior to 30th day, 1958 could not be taken into account while declaring the surplus area under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and, therefore, the surplus area declared in the year 1960 could not be utilised by the State Government as it had not vested in it. Hence these appeals.

(3.) LEARNED Single Judge placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Ajmer Singh's case (supra). It is true that in Ajmer Singh's case this Court had observed that the land transferred by a big landowner prior to 30th day of July, 1958 had to be excluded from the surplus pool but that judgment in appeal was reversed by the Apex Court in Amar Singh and others v. Ajmer Singh and others, (1994-3) Punjab Law Reporter 433 : 1994(3) RRR 90 (SC). The learned Judges of the Apex Court placed reliance on the observations of their earlier judgment in Smt. Bhagwanti Devi and another v. State of Haryana and another, (1994-2) 106 PLR 423 : 1994(2) RRR 358 (SC).