NARAIN GIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gian Gir, father of petitioners Nos. 1 to 7, and husband of petitioner No. 8, owned 32 standard acres and 10 units of land in the revenue estate of village Datoli, tehsil and district Sonepat. He sold away 6 standard acres and 9 units out of this land in favour of Ram Sarup Brahman for consideration through a registered sale deed before 30.7.1958. One acre of his land was under an old tenant Sarup son of Jhandu before 15.4.1953. In this manner he had in his hands less than 30 standard acres of land and thus no part of it could be declared surplus. However, by applying the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the 'Punjab Law'), the Collector, Surplus Area, Sonepat, vide order dated 6.1.1960 assessed that the total holding of Gian Gir was 32 standard acres and 10 units and by ignoring the bona fide sale of 6 standard acres and 9 units before 30.7.1958, declared 2 standard acres and 10 units of land with him as surplus in his hands. However, the surplus area so declared was not utilised till the coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter called 'the Haryana Act'). Section 8 of the Haryana Act provides that all transfers or dispositions of land even if they were in excess of the permissible area under the Punjab Law were protected if they were made prior to 30.7.1958. Thus, for determining whether Gian Gir had any area of land in excess of his permissible area, the land which was actually owned by him on 31.7.1958 had to be taken into consideration. Consequently, Gian Gir moved an application before the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) cum Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 2, stating that keeping in view the provisions of Section 8 of the Haryana Act there was no surplus area in his hands. This application was, however, dismissed by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 24.1.1979 Annexure P.2 in view of the instructions issued by the Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department, vide letter dated 4.8.1978 Annexure P.1, and it was held that the area already declared surplus in his hands vests in the Government and would accordingly be utilised. Gian Gir having died in the meanwhile was succeeded by the petitioners as his heirs. They filed the present writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the Government instructions dated 4.8.1978 Annexure P. 1 and the order of the Prescribed Authority Annexure P. 2. Written statement on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 was filed by the latter. One Banwari Lal claiming himself to be the allottee of 19 Kanals 15 Marlas out of the land which was declared surplus in the hands of Gian Gir was added as a respondent on an application made by him under Order 1, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure. He has also filed his written statement.

(2.) The Government instructions dated 4.8.1978 Annexure P. 1, acting upon which respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order Annexure P. 2, came up for consideration before S. S. Kang, J. in C.W.P. No. 652 of 1979 (Sahib Singh v. The State of Haryana) decided on 5.12.1984, and taking into account the facts involved in that case the learned Judge held the said instructions to be against law. A Full Bench of this Court in Jaswant Kaur v. State of Haryana, 1977 0 PunLJ 230, held that all transfers of land made by a landowner owning land in excess of the permissible area under the Punjab Law are protected if they were made prior to 30.7.1958 and the benefit of Section 8 of the Haryana Act can be available to all owners in spite of the provisions contained in Section 12 of the Haryana Act. Following the Full Bench judgment in Jaswant Kaur's case , it was held by this Court inState of Haryana v. Chandgi, 1981 0 PunLJ 494, that the sales made by the landowner prior to 30.7.1958 could not be legally ignored and had to be taken into consideration while determining the surplus area in his hands under the Punjab Law on the date of coming into force of the Haryana Act.

(3.) I, therefore, find no hesitation to conclude that on taking into account the sale of 6 standard acres 9 units of land made by Gian Gir to Ram Sarup Brahman for consideration through a registered sale deed prior to 30.7.1958, he having been left with less than 30 standard acres of land in his hands, there was no surplus area with him under the Punjab Law which could vest in the State Government on coming into force of the Haryana Act. When the writ petition came up for motion hearing, dispossession of the petitioner was stayed. The allotment out of the area wrongly treated as surplus in the hands of Gian Gir made to Banwari Lal respondent No. 3 is invalid.