BABU SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.03.1989 (Annexure P -1) passed by Collector -cum -Prescribed Authority, Sirsa, under the provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), order dated 12.11.1992 (Annexure P -2) passed by Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, and order dated 05.01.1993 (Annexure P -3) passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner Babu Singh filed his declaration form regarding his land under the provisions of the Act before the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Sirsa, exercising the powers of Prescribed Authority, on 16.08.1976. The Prescribed Authority considered the case of the petitioner and declared 70 kanals and 10 marlas of land in Village Chormar Khera and 49 kanals and 6 marlas of land in Village Jagmalwali, total measuring 119 kanals and 6 marlas (14.98 ordinary acres) as surplus on 19.09.1978. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Collector, Sirsa, which was dismissed vide order dated 31.08.1981. Thereafter, petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner. Commissioner set aside the orders passed by Prescribed Authority and Collector and remitted the case back to Collector for deciding the declaration form on merits. Collector again upheld the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 19.09.1978 vide order dated 06.12.1983. Petitioner again preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Hisar. Commissioner set aside the order dated 06.12.1983 vide order dated 12.05.1988 and remanded the case back to the Collector -cum -Prescribed Authority, Sirsa, with a direction to afford due opportunity to the petitioner to adduce his evidence and thereafter decide the case on merits. After remand, vide impugned order dated 13.03.1989 (Annexure P -1) again Collector -cum -Prescribed Authority, Sirsa, upheld the order dated 19.09.1978. Aggrieved against the order dated 13.03.1989 petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Hisar which was dismissed vide order dated 12.11.1992 (Annexure P -2). Thereafter, petitioner filed revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, which has been dismissed vide order dated 05.01.1993 (Annexure P -3). Hence this writ petition. It needs to be mentioned that original owner of the land was Ganga Singh, father of the petitioner, who died on 14.07.1970 leaving behind three sons and widow, namely, Punjab Kaur. After the death of Ganga Singh mutation was sanctioned in favour of his three sons and his widow was not given any share in the land whereas she was entitled to inherit equally with her sons. In lieu of maintenance Babu Singh transferred land vide civil court decree dated 05.05.1972 before the commencement of the Act i.e. 23.12.1972 in good faith. The said land has been taken into consideration for the purpose of declaring the land surplus in the hands of Babu Singh. The issue, which needs to be considered in the present case is "whether the decree dated 05.05.1972 in favour of Punjab Kaur, wife of Ganga Singh and mother of Babu Singh, is legal and valid and is a bona fide transfer protected under the provisions of the Act -

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in natural course of succession of Ganga Singh, Punjab Kaur being widow was entitled to get land as per her share besides her three sons. Punjab Kaur, mother of the petitioner, has been given land by the petitioner in lieu of maintenance vide civil court decree dated 05.05.1972 prior to commencement of the Act i.e. 23.12.1972. Otherwise also, widow was equally entitled to inherit her husband's land along with her sons. Land was mutated in the names of sons of Ganga Singh. It is settled principle of law that mutation does not confer any title and as per natural succession, Punjab Kaur was also entitled to equal share. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Jagir Singh v. The State of Punjab and others,1980 PunLJ 631that transfer in favour of widow is a bona fide transfer. Learned counsel for the petitioner further by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Swarup and others v. S.N. Maira and others, 1999 1 PunLJ 11 contended that transfers made prior to 23.12.1972 are fully protected.