AJMER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 2.12.1985 (annexure P-1) passed by Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Prescribed Authority, Thanesar. It is also prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed to declare that the land in question is not surplus and it should deliver possession thereof to the petitioner. It has been filed in the following circumstances.

(2.) Maru Ram, father of Ajmer Singh petitioner, was a big landowner. His holding was partitioned amongst him and his four sons in equal shares through a decree dated 16.6.1958 (incorrectly mentioned as 25.7.1958 in the impugned order.) Effect was given to the decree and the partition in the revenue record through mutation No. 109 sanctioned on 20.11.1958. However, erroneously, the revenue authorities in the purported exercise of their jurisdiction under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, declared 9 standard acres and 3-1/4 units of land surplus in the hands of Maru Ram. It may be useful to bear in mind that Maru Ram was not the owner of all the land which was taken into account. The land which was owned and possessed by the petitioner and his three brothers was also taken to be the land owned and possessed by Maru Ram and his surplus area case was decided on that basis. The petitioner or his brothers were not associated with these proceedings of declaration of surplus land though their land had been declared surplus. The revenue record shows that they were owners of this land. This order was passed on 10.3.1961. Under the Punjab Law as prevelant at the relevant time and applicable to the land in dispute the landowner could transfer his land to others and such transfers uptill 30.7.1958 were recognized.

(3.) The Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act) was in certain matters given effect to from 24.1.1971. Section 8 of the Act reads as under :-