RAM PAT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the respondents 1 and 2 vide Annexure P.4 and P.3, respectively.

(2.) THE petitioners are the grandsons of one Nihali Bai who was a big landowner and owned land in village Harsana Khurd. Out of the said land, she gifted 148 kanals 3 marlas in favour of petitioner No. 1 through a registered gift deed dated 13.3.1957. Mutation of the same was effected. The surplus area of Nihali Bai under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 was decided on 2.11.1960 and after allowing her the permissible area of 60 ordinary acres, an area of 3 kanals and 3 marlas was declared surplus. The area gifted in favour of the Ist petitioner namely 148 Kanals, 3 Marlas, was declared as surplus and it was comprised in Killa Nos. 17/22/18/23, 24 and 25. Though petitioner No. 1 was transferee of Nihali Bai, he was entitled to a notice. But the Collector Surplus Area while deciding the case of Smt. Nihali Bai on 2.11.1960 did not give any notice. Nihali Bai died on 4.6.1965 and according to the petitioners, the area declared surplus was never utilised and the revenue authorities allotted the surplus area to respondents 3 to 5 after the death of Nihali Bai. According to the petitioners, the area is to be exempted from the surplus pool as the same was gifted to the Ist petitioner by Nihali Bai on 13.3.1957. Thereafter, after coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) accepted the application of the petitioners and excluded the area from the surplus pool. Against the said orders, respondents 3 to 6 filed separate appeals before the Collector (Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat) under Section 18(4) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, who allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil). Then petitioners filed two separate revision petitions before the Commissioner, Ambala Division who also dismissed their revision petitions. Therefore, the petitioners filed this writ petition.

(3.) IT is an admitted fact that the respondents 3 to 4 have been allotted this land which has been declared as surplus area during 1967-68 and they have also been put in possession of the same. Therefore, when the surplus area has been utilised before coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, there is no question of treating the said land as the land of the petitioners. Even before the Act came into force, the surplus area of Nihali Bai has been utilised. Further the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner, Ambala Division have gone through the entire record and found that the land has already been utilised before commencement of the Act and that the orders determining the surplus area of Nihali Bai under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act have become final. Therefore, they have rightly held that the Sub Divisional Officer (C) who was the prescribed authority under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, was competent to exempt this land from the surplus pool. On a close examination of the matter and considering the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner, Ambala Division, I do not find any grounds warranting interference with the same. The orders of the Commissioner, Ambala Division and that of the Deputy Commissioner do not suffer from any infirmity.