BALWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writ No. 1613 of 1967 (Balwant Singh v. State of Haryana and others) and Civil Writ No. 1614 of 1967 (Badlu v. State of Haryana and others) as same questions of law and fact are involved in both these petitions.

(2.) Smt. Bhagwani, respondent No. 4, was a big landowner having her lands in village Goawara, Tehsil Rewari, District Gurgaon. Out of her total holding, land measuring 64 ordinary acres was declared as surplus by the Collector, respondent No. 2, by his order, dated 25.11.1959, under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be called the Act). Balwant Singh petitioner in Civil Writ No. 1613 of 1967, and Badlu petitioner in the other writ petition were tenants of small landowners and a result of the application by their landlords, they were ejected from their respective tenancies. Thereafter both the petitioners were allotted lands separately out of the surplus area of respondent No. 4 on 10.11.1961. As the land in that village was subjected to consolidation proceedings, respondent No. 4, in order to defeat the rights of the petitioners as re-settled tenants managed the filing of an application under section 18 of the Act by her son-in-law, Nihal Singh, for the purchase of the land including the land allotted to the petitioners, showing that he (Nihal Singh) was a tenant on the land and was entitled to become the proprietor on payment of the prescribed price. In that application neither of the petitioners was impleaded as a party. The petitioners were delivered possession of the lands allotted to them on 15.6.1973 vide copy of the entry in the Roznamcha Waqiati (Annexure 'A').

(3.) Respondent No. 4 subsequently filed writ petition No. 1181 of 1963 claiming re-determination of the surplus area on account of consolidation proceedings. This writ petition was allowed by Mahajan, J., vide his order, dated 18.12.1963 (Annexure 'B'). In this writ petition also neither of the petitioners was impleaded as a party. The operative part of the said order is reproduced below :-