HARKORI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from taking possession of the land on the ground that the same belongs to the petitioners. One Hardayal was the owner of the land. The possession of the disputed land was declared as surplus by order of the Collector dated March 16, 1961, in the proceedings taken under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) According to the petitioners, the land in dispute was gifted by Hardayal to his son Gordhan sometime in 1954 prior to June, 1954, and, therefore, the same has to be excluded from the holding of Hardayal, Gordhan being the legal heir of Hardayal on the death of Hardayal. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the declaration of surplus are in the hands of Hardayal does not vest in the State and, thus, the petitioners can not be dispossessed from the said land by the Government.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the land in question was the subject-matter of gift by the landowner in 1954 in favour of his son Gordhan, and, therefore, the land could not be included in the holding of Hardayal and it is to be excluded from his holding. The land would devolve on the petitioners on the death of Gordhan. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that on March 16, 1961, the Collector has shown the area of 30 std. acres to be the area of landowner and declared the remaining area of 62.93 ordinary acres/15.66 std. acres as surplus area belonging to Hardayal and in the order dated August 11, 1962, he has shown 60 ordinary acres 14.96 standard acres as permissible area to be remained with the landowner and this discrepancy has not been explained by the authorities concerned. He also further contended that the property has not been utilised by the respondent-State. Therefore, the property remained in possession of Gordhan son of Hardayal and after the death of Gordhan it remained in possession of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be dispossessed from the land in dispute.