BALWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the alienations effected by the landowner-petitioner shall have to be excluded or not from his holding, while determining surplus area in his hands, in view of the provisions of section 8 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Haryana Act).

(2.) It is not disputed that Balwant Singh, landowner-petitioner, had transferred 54 Kanals and 4 Marlas of land by a registered sale-deed dated 10.5.1958 in favour of one Sada Ram son of Zile Singh for a consideration of Rs. 7,500/- and, prior to that, by a registered deed of exchange dated 28.2.1958, he had given 52 Kanals and 12 Marlas of land to Sube Singh son of Kishan and, in lieu therefore, obtained an area of land measuring 34 Kanals 11 Marlas. In this way, the petitioner's holding stood reduced by 72 Kanals 5 Marlas before 30.7.1958. The Collector Surplus Area, ignoring the aforesaid alienation and exchange, assessed under the relevant provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act of 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Punjab Law), the total area in the hands of the petitioner at 39 Standard Acres 10- 3/4 Units and declared 9 Standard Acres 10-3/4 Units, equivalent to 82 Kanals 9 Marlas, as surplus with the petitioner, vide order dated 9.2.1960. It is not in dispute that the surplus area so declared remained unutilized till the enforcement of the Haryana Act. It is also beyond the pale of controversy that when such is the case, the Haryana Act becomes applicable to the holding of such an owner so far as the provision of section 8 thereof is concerned, as held by a Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 PunLJ 230.

(3.) The petitioner applied to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector Agrarian, Sonepat, (Prescribed Authority under the Haryana Act), requesting that the land that was alienated and exchanged prior to 30.7.1958 should be excluded from his holding in view of the provisions of section 8 of the Haryana Act. This application was rejected by the said Authority with the observation that the area, in question, had been transferred from the permissible area of the petitioner and, therefore, he cannot be given the benefit of section 8 of the Haryana Act.