UDEY SINGH Vs. GOPI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, against the order dated 19.5.1994 passed by the Commissioner, Hissar Division, Hissar.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that Udey Singh and others, petitioners, moved an application under Section 8 read with Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 before the Prescribed Authority, Rohtak seeking exemption of the land in dispute from the surplus pool on the ground that the original landowner Ran Singh had expired and the land in dispute had remained unutilised and the petitioners beings small landowners were entitled to retain the land in dispute. The Prescribed Authority, Rohtak vide his order dated 12.1.1993 dismissed the application of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the order of the Prescribed Authority, the petitioners went in appeal before the District Collector, Bhiwani who vide his order dated 31.8.1993 accepted the appeal and directed the Prescribed Authority to redetermine the status of the petitioners. Gopi Ram, respondent filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Hissar Division against the order dated 31.8.1993 passed by the Collector. The Commissioner after hearing both the parties, accepted the revision petition vide his order dated 19.5.1994, setting aside the order of the Collector dated 31.8.1993 and restored the orders of the Prescribed Authority dated 12.1.1993. The present revision petition has been filed against the impugned order of the Commissioner, Hissar Division.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 argued that the area declared surplus under the Punjab Law or Pepsu Law stood vested in the State of Haryana on 24.1.1971 under Section 12(3) of the Haryana Law. The original landowner Ran Singh died on 3.6.1976 i.e. much after the land had already vested in the State and the petitioners could not inherit the surplus land already vested in the State. The law has since been settled in the cases of Ram Singh and others v. State of Haryana, reported in 1982-PLJ-102; Shiv Nairan and others v. State of Haryana, 1984 RRR 432 (P&H) : 1983-PLJ-314; Jaswant Kaur and others v. State of Haryana, reported in 1977-PLJ-230; Thath Singh and others v. State of Haryana, reported in 1986 RRR 180 (P&H) : 1986-PLJ-402, which have been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bharat Bhushan and others v. State of Haryana, reported in 1990(2) LJR-34 : 1991(1) RRR 223(P&H) and Bhagwanti and others v. State of Haryana, reported in 1994(2) LJR 113 : 1994(3) RRR 115(SC). These rulings do not allow the operation of inheritance after the death of big landowners after 24.1.1971 and surplus cases decided under the Punjab Law cannot be reopened. He also prayed that penalty be also imposed on the petitioners for depriving the allottees of cultivation of their allotted land.