LACHHMI CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the orders whereby their land was declared surplus and the application for exemption was turned down. Mam Raj, father of the petitioners suffered a decree in the year 1958 as per which he agreed that portions of land belonged to the three petitioners. On 23.5.1959 the mutation was sanctioned by Annexure P-1. In the year 1961 Mam Raj submitted his declaration as a consequence of which some of the land owned by him and the three petitioners was declared surplus and allotment was made to the private respondents. It is not disputed that on that date petitioners were minors and no notice was issued to them. With the passage of time the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 was promulgated and by then the petitioners had either attained majority or were on the verge thereof. They moved an application under Section 8 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 1972 on 19.08.1983 bringing to the notice of the Prescribed Authority the fact that land belonging to them had wrongly been declared surplus by considering it to be in the ownership of their father Mam Raj and without issuing any notice to them. The Prescribed Authority exempted 172 Kanals 13 Marlas of land. The private respondents filed an appeal which was allowed. The petitioners challenged that order before the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner and, being unsuccessful filed the present writ petition. In reply the State-respondents No. 1 to 5 have accepted the factual averments made above. The private respondents No. 6 to 17 did not file any written statement for almost 21 years and thereafter moved an application for permission to place on record written statement on 02.10.2013.

(2.) At the very outset learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners states that this written statement cannot be taken on record since the respondents had sought to file it with inordinate delay. In my considered opinion it may not be necessary for me to decide this issue because the essential factual matrix has been admitted in this written statement also. Consequently I overrule the objection made by learned senior counsel for the petitioners and permit the written statement to be taken on record.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has argued that once the name of the petitioners existed on the revenue record then no portion of their land could have been declared surplus without issuing notice to them. In this connection he has relied upon Section 5A, 5B and 5C of The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The same are reproduced as follows:-