DEVA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of orders passed by Land Revenue Authorities.

(2.) Smt. Nimbo owned land in Village Bastara Tehsil and District Karnal. She was a big landowner. Collector, Karnal vide order dtd. 13/7/1960 declared her 82 standard acres 4 units as surplus land under Rule 6(6) of Punjab Security of Land Tenure Rules, 1956 (for short '1956 Rules'). Smt. Nimbo transferred her land holdings in the name of petitioners and other legal heirs by virtue of Civil Court decree and mutation to this effect was entered in the name of transferees on 17/7/1959. This decree was ignored by Authorities in view of provisions of Ss. 10 & 19-A of Smt. Nimbo died on 6/1/1968 and till that date her surplus land was not utilized by the State Government. The Authorities allotted partial surplus land of Smt. Nimbo on 16/9/1976 to private respondents. The petitioners and other legal heirs of Smt. Nimbo filed an application on 15/7/1977 before competent authority under Sec. 8 of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short '1972 Act') on the ground that Punjab Security on Land Tenures Act, 1953 has been repealed by Sec. 33 of 1972 Act. They pleaded that Smt. Nimbo died in 1968 and during her lifetime surplus area was not utilized and the petitioners after her death became small landowners and are entitled to retain the surplus land.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that land in question was declared surplus under 1953 Act. Total land declared surplus was 351 Kanals 1 Marlas. 166 Kanals 5 Marlas was allotted to respondent Nos.5 to 9 and 184 Kanals 16 Marlas was allotted to respondent Nos.11 to 66. 1972 Act came into force w.e.f. 24/1/1971. By said date, land in question was not utilized as per provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder, thus, the petitioners being legal heirs of big landowner became entitled to land as per provisions of Sec. 8 read with 12 & 33 of 1972 Act. The respondents were issued Form K-6 and possession was handed over, however, there was no compliance of Rule 20-C of 1956 Rules. As per Rule 20-C, the tenant-private respondents were required to execute Qabuliyat or Patta as given in Annexure 'C' in favour of landowner before they were put in possession of the land. The respondent in its reply has conceded that Form K-6 was issued prior to 1972 Act, the possession was handed over prior to 1972 Act, however, Form US-3 and mutation was sanctioned after 1972 Act. There was no need to issue Form US-3 after 1972 Act if land was already utilized prior to 1972 Act.