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 Hardyal to his son Gordhan sometime in 1954 prior to June 1954, and therefore, the same has to be excluded from the holding of Hardyal, Gordhan being the legal heir of Hardyal on the death of Hardayal. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the declaration of surplus area in the hands of Hardayal does not vest in the State and, thus the petitioner cannot be dispossessed from the said land by the Government.

(3.) I am unable to agree with any of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Even if there is a gift property by Hardayal in favour of his son Gordhan, there is nothing in the Rules which excludes any transfer effected by the land -owner after the commencement of the Act. and prior to July 31, 1958. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to Section 19(a) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. Section 19(a) only deals with future equation by the land -owner and according to Section 19 (a) after the commencement of the Act, it has to be excluded from the holding of the landowner. Section 19 (a) does not deal with the case where the land owner makes a gift by transfer to property in any manner. The learned counsel did not draw my attention to any provision in the Act which enables the land -owner to claim exemption of any property on the ground that he transferred the property after the commencement of this Act and prior to any particular date. In the absence of any such provisions, any transfer of land has to be ignored. Therefore, the gift in favour of the son of Hardayal in the year 1954 has to be naturally ignored for the purposes of determining the surplus area held by the land -owner.