NARPAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a transfer of land by landowner in excess of his area before 30.7.1958, which land has been declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and which land had been allotted to a tenant in accordance with the scheme framed under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules can be ignored while determining the surplus area of such a landowner under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act is the primary question agitated in this Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. It has been filed under the following circumstances.

(2.) Narpat Singh petitioner owned 33 standard acres and 1 unit of land on April 15, 1953. Thus he had three standard acres and 1 unit of land in excess of the permissible area i.e. 30 standard acres prescribed under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (the 'Punjab Law' for short). Narpat Singh effected bona fide transfer of 12 standard acres and 9-1/4 units of land by a registered sale deed to Rampat, Om Datt and others. The vendees were rank strangers to Narpat Singh petitioner. After this transfer the petitioner was left with 20 standard acres and 7-3/4 units of land on 30.7.1958 which was well within the permissible area of 30 standard acres.

(3.) The Collector Surplus Area, Sonepat, decided the surplus area case of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Law on 29.2.1960 and declared 3 standard acres and 1 unit of land equivalent to 40 ordinary Kanals and 2 ordinary Marlas as surplus in the petitioner's hands ignoring the sale made to Rampat, Om Datt and others. Under the Punjab Act, land declared surplus was included in the surplus pool but it continued to be in the ownership of the landowner. Baljit Singh respondent No. 4 to this petition was allotted the land declared surplus in the petitioner's hand in accordance with Part IV of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules (for short, the Rules) Under Rule 20-C of the Rules a tenant who is resettled on the surplus land becomes a tenant of the landowner in whose name the land in question stands in the revenue record. He is liable to pay the customary rent to the landowner and is required to execute a Qabuliyat or a Patta in favour of the landowner before he is put in possession of the land. In short, the allottee of the surplus land, according to the Punjab Law, does not acquire the land comprised in his tenancy. After being declared surplus, this land does not come to vest in the State and remains the property of the landowner. Though Baljit Singh became a tenant under the petitioner on allotment of the surplus land to him on 25.9.1964, he did not make any application for acquiring the proprietary rights therein under Section 18 of the Punjab Law.