THATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Angad son of Hira Lal, father of the petitioners, owned 52 standard acres of land in village Uplana, tehsil and district Karnal (now in Haryana) on 15.4.1953. He failed to file any declaration and hence did not reserve his permissible area as required by the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter called 'the Punjab Law'). Consequently, the Collector on his own declared 22 standard acres of his land as his surplus area vide order dated 27.6.1960 Annexure P.1. However, at that time, consolidation proceedings had not been completed in the village. After consolidation of holdings, Angad submitted a list of Khasra numbers of his own to reserve the same as his permissible area and on that basis the Collector, Kaithal, vide order dated 18.5.1961 Annexure P.2 declared 363 Kanals 13 Marlas of land as surplus area in his hands. In spite of the order Annexure P.2. which was never challenged by Angad, he continued in possession of the land which was declared as surplus area, as the same was never utilized by the State. On 18.7.1970, 5/6th share of the land measuring 426 Kanals 6 Marlas with Angad was mutated in the names of the petitioners on the basis of judgment and decree dated 22.12.1969 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Kaithal, vide mutation Annexure P.3. The Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter called 'the Haryana Act') came into force on 23.12.1972. Angad filed a declaration under section 9 of the Haryana Act with the Collector who, after verifying the fact that the land in the hands of Angad and the petitioners fell well within the limits of permissible area under the Haryana Act, held that Angad was not a big landowner vide order dated 7.3.1978 Annexure P.4. Later, however, mutation in respect of the land which was declared surplus by the Collector vide Annexure P.2 was sanctioned in the name of the State Government under section 12 (3) of the Haryana Act. Copy of the mutation in this regard is Annexure P.5.

(2.) The petitioners have challenged through the instant writ petition the mutation order Annexure P.5 primarily on the ground that on 23.12.1972 when the Haryana Act came into force Angad had no suprlus land in his hands, if the provisions of the said Act are kept in view. According to them, Angad had a right to reserve permissible area for his sons, the petitioners, under the Haryana Act. They further contend that the order of the Collector Annexure P.4, which clearly holds that Angad was entitled to take permissible area for his five minor children and separate units for his adult sons and thus the land left with him was less than the permissible area, had never been challenged by the respondent before any higher authority and in the face of this order mutation Annexure P.5 cannot be sustained.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention as set out in the petition relied on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ranjit Ram v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 1981 83 PunLR 492. In my view the law laid down in Ranjit Ram's case has no application to the facts. In Ranjit Ram's case the Punjab Land Reforms Act 1972 had been considered and interpreted. To bring out the sharp distinction between the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act ,1972 and those of the Haryana Act it would suffice to notice section 8 of the former Act and section 12 (3) of the latter Act, which are reproduced hereunder :-