PARBHU DAYAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present petition is to orders Annexure P -1 to P -4 passed by the Authorities below, whereby the prayer of the petitioners for including the land measuring 38 Kanals (land in dispute) within the permissible area of Ude Singh (original land owner and vendor of predecessor in interest of petitioners) has been declined.

(2.) FACTS in brief are that one Ude Singh son of Jeevan, resident of village Jatuala, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was a big land owner having 93 acres of agricultural land on the appointed day i.e. 15.04.1953. Out of his total land holding, 53 acres including the land in dispute were declared surplus in his presence on 5.1.1960 in the proceedings under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short 1953 Act). It is further the case of the petitioners that Ram Karan (predecessor in interest of the petitioners) purchased land measuring 38 Kanals (land in dispute) vide sale deed dated 16.06.1958 for a sale consideration of Rs.1200/ - which was registered on 1.12.1958 and mutation to this effect was sanctioned on 20.5.1959 vide mutation number 376. However vide mutation no.1084 dated 25.12.1982, the land was transferred in favour of Haryana Government in view of the automatic vesting of the surplus land under Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short 1972 Act) and against this, the petitioners filed an application before the prescribed authority, Gurgaon on 4.1.1991. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2003 and appeal against the same was also dismissed by Collector, Gurgaon on 29.05.2006 and revision was also dismissed by the Commissioner on 30.01.2008. It is also evident from the record that out of the area purchased by predecessor in interest of petitioner, 20 Kanal being part of surplus land pool was allotted to one Om Parkash. It is further the case of the petitioners that the area bought by him/his predecessors in interest should be treated as the land owners' permissible area because the sale took place on 16.6.1958 and thus, the provisions of the 1953 Act as well as 1972 Act respectively are not applicable to the present petitioners.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners has argued on the basis of the facts mentioned hereinabove and has stated that the Authorities below have wrongly dismissed the claim petition for declaring the area under possession and ownership of petitioners since the sale made on 16.06.1958 was prior to 30.07.1958 although registered on 01.12.1958 and thus exempted from the surplus area in the light of the provisions of 1972 Act.