AMIT LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is at the instance of a person who claimed to have secured property which was treated as permissible area of the tenant under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short '1953 Act'), as applicable to the State of Haryana.

(2.) ONE Kurda was a big landowner whose total holdings were to the extent of 478 Bighas and 15 Biawas, and stated to be in excess of the ceiling area. Kurda, however, was believed to have transferred half share by means of a gift deed in favour of his brother Rajmal and mutation was sanctioned in the name of his brother on 21.9.1951. One Rupu claimed to have been the tenant in respect of the property under Kurda and sought for ascertaining his right under Section 18 of the 1953 Act and to recognise his right to purchase the land. The proceedings relating to his alleged right came up for consideration when in a decision in CWP No. 1596 of 1977 this Court held that Rupu had not proved his right as a tenant before 16.5.1950 and, therefore, the rights protected under Section 18 of the 1953 Act had not fructified in his favour. In independent proceedings which were taken subsequently the tenant had applied for a lesser right of the property to be reserved as the property which he could reserve as falling within the tenant's permissible area. Neither Kurda nor Rajmal had raised any objection regarding the treatment of the property as surplus and the contest was entered by petitioner by claiming that he had secured the property in exchange from Rajmal and that the property did not belong either to Kurda or Rajmal to treat the property as a surplus in proceedings against Kurda. Consequently, the petitioner had not set out anywhere as to when the alleged exchange had taken place. Tenant himself had a contention to make that the exchange had been actually brought about in the year 1956 to defeat his right and made reference to Section 16 of the 1953 Act which discarded transaction or dispossession effected after 1.2.1955 as no valid or binding to affect the right of tenancy. With no proof available when the exchange had taken effect, the authorities upheld the claim of the tenant and allowed the property to be retained as the tenant's permissible area. It is this order which has been challenged before this Court.

(3.) THE writ petition is dismissed.