MEGH RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the above titled both the writ petition as the same arise out same set of facts. In C.W.P. No. 3056 of 1983, the challenge to the proceedings taken under the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act passed in appeal and revision by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, affirming the order of the Collector declaring surplus and barring the landowner from making reservation of the property claimed by the tenant, is brought to challenge broadly under two grounds (i) the property which was declared as surplus on 18.7.1978 by the Collector and the subsequent orders cannot be given effect to, in view of the fact that even before the conclusion of the proceedings and during the pendency of this writ petition, the big landowner has expired and re-determination will have to be done by giving effect to succession of the land in the hands of his heirs; (ii) the order passed by the Collector declaring the petitioners rights to make reservation of the property which he seeks to hold within 50 standard acre cannot be denied by a claim by the tenant in respect of some properties on the ground that the landlord had not made such reservation of the particular properties earlier when a previous aborted attempt to declare the surplus on 25.5.1961 did not set out this particular property as the property reserved by the landowner.

(2.) It is a matter of record that the landowner was a displaced person who had given a declaration reserving 100 ordinary acres on 12.10.1953 and the Collector passed an order on 25.5.1961 declaring 5.11 standard acres as property that fell beyond permissible area (Annexure P/2) of 50 standard acre as surplus. These proceedings were time and again reviewed and it was only order dated 18.7.1978 that brought to a finality at that time declaring the property held by the landowner as in excess of the ceiling area. The landlord had a right to make reservation only after the declaration was made and the scheme under the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act lends a primacy under Section 5 to the landowner to make a reservation which reservation will protect only certain classes of tenants, namely tenants who held possession for 20 years prior to the Act and jundimar tenant. The tenant was taking a claim did not belong to either of the category and, therefore, the landlord could not have lost his right to make his reservation in the manner he pleased, without in any way bound by the earlier reservation made in the year 1953. It is also urged that even in the reservation made in the year 1953, the property now sought to be reserved had been set out but only the khasra numbers have changed over the period of time and the landowner was not in any way modifying the original reservation. It is also the contention that the tenant was himself a tenant only subsequent to the first reservation made in the year 1953 and, therefore, he cannot secure any priority in the manner of reservation. When the order of the Collector was, therefore, under challenge under several grounds, which were possible, the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner have rejected such a plea for reservation, which in my view, is not justified. This is merely to set out the factual back ground for this narration itself becomes irrelevant for the purpose of consideration of the determination of surplus since before the orders become final, the landowner had expired and, therefore, it shall not be possible to make a reckoning of the property that could be held by the landowner without taking note of the succession that had opened. This is in terms of the law laid down in a decision by this court in similar set of facts in Smt. Bhanti Devi and others v. The State of Haryana and others, 2012 5 RCR(Civ) 264 . This Court has held that declaration vesting the property as surplus shall be the date of declaration made by the Collector under the Act but again it must become final after it survived the right of appeal and the revision. If orders passed in appeal or revision have themselves become a subject of challenge and if big landowner dies and the succession open, inevitably it would have to be made in the hands of the legal heirs of the deceased only. Applying the principle brought out through the said decision rendered by reference to a Full Bench ruling, that considered the interplay of the Punjab Security of Land Act and the Punjab Land Reforms Act, has to be applied to this case as well. I, therefore, hold that the proceedings of the Collector and the subsequent orders, would require to be quashed for additional ground which had occurred during the pendency of the petition. The impugned proceedings will, therefore, stand nullified through this order. The writ petition is allowed. The State shall be at liberty to take independent proceedings by seeking for declaration from the legal heirs of the deceased landowner under any other enactment for determination of the holding and if need be by applying the provisions of the appropriate legislation to determine the permissible area for the landowner and the legal heirs. The decision in C.W.P. No. 3056 of 1983 literally concludes the issue that is required to be undertaken in C.W.P. No. 3052 of 1983, which is a challenge to the order lending primacy to a claim made by the tenant that he shall not be entitled to make his reservation, without reference to the landowner's reservation. I have already held that the landowner's right of reservation arose only after an order of the Collector on 18.7.1978 and the tenant cannot oust the landowner's pre-eminent right by making reservation so long it did not conflict with any of the accepted categories set out under Section 5 of the Act of 1953. The objection to the reservation made by the landowner at the instance of the tenant is also quashed and the writ petition is allowed.