UDEY RAM AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents from taking possession of the land on the ground that the same belongs to the petitioners One Gugan was the owner of the land. The possession of the disputed land was declared as surplus by an order of the Collector in the proceeding taken under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the 'Act').

(2.) According to the petitioners, the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioners in a partition decree dated June 17, 1958, and, therefore, the same has to be excluded from the holding of Gugan. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the declaration of surplus area in the hands of Gugan does not vest in the State and that the land has not been utilised and, therefore, the petitioners cannot 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 the partition decree in 1958 in favour of the sons of Gugan and, therefore, the land could not be included in the holding of Gugan and it is to be excluded from his holding. The land devolved on the petitioners by way of partition decree. He also further contended that the property has not been utilised by the respondent-State. Therefore the property remained in possession of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be dispossessed from the land in dispute.