RAJPAL SINGH Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal whose suit for grant of the declaration has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

(2.) Bakhtawar Singh, son by Daya Ram was the father of plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 and the husband of plaintiff No. 4, Shrimati Jhando. He was a big landowner. His land measuring 92 kanals 16 marlas was declared surplus in his hands. However, he continued in cultivating possession of the suit land till his death which took place on December 22, 1972. It is the admitted position on record that the surplus land was never utilised, nor the said Bakhtawar Singh was dispossessed by the State therefrom. According to the plaintiffs after the death of Bakhtawar Singh, they inherited the land and the mutation No. 73 dated January 16, 1973, was decided in their favour. It was alleged that they become the small landowners and the suit land became their permissible area and since then they are in possession thereof as owners. Since the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Jagadhari issued an order dated June 21, 1976 for mutating the suit land in the name of the Haryana State and accordingly mutation No. 100 Exhibit P. 3, and mutation No. 101, Exhibit P. 4, dated July 31, 1976, were attested and sanctioned in favour of the State Government; hence the present suit on February 25, 1981, challenging the said mutations. According to the plaintiffs, the said mutations were void ab initio and not binding upon them. After the death of Bakhtawar Singh, declaration form No. 353 dated April 14, 1977, was filed and thereon order dated March 13, 1978 copy, Exhibit P. 6 was passed by the prescribed authority, by which it was declared that no land was surplus with the plaintiffs. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that the area so declared surplus was transferred in favour of the State Government under Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, (hereinafter called the Act), which had come into force respectively with effect from January 24, 1971 and the mutation was sanctioned in favour of the State Government which was legal and according to law. The plaintiffs did not disclose the true facts about the surplus land to the official concerned and, therefore, the order, Exhibit P.6, was of no consequence. It was further pleaded that the suit land already been transferred in favour of the State Government. Accordingly under Section 12(3) of the Act, the Government was fully and legally authorised to dispossess the plaintiffs. The trial Court found that the mutations Nos. 100 and 101 had been rightly sanctioned in favour of the State Government. However, under issue No 2 which was to the effect whether the plaintiffs were the small landowners it was found that they were small landowners. The suit was also held to be barred by time. Ultimately, the plaintiffs, suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the said findings and the trial Court and thus, maintained the decree dismissing the plaintiffs' suit.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Section 11 of the Act has to be read along with section 8 thereof. According to the learned counsel, 24th January, 1971, was the appointed day. That being so, after the death of Bakhtawar Singh, his widow filed the necessary declaration form, No. 353 dated 14th April, 1977. Along there with the birth certificate of her son Rajpal showing his date of birth as 11th June 1951, was also filed. On the basis of that, the prescribed authority passed the order, dated 13th March, 1978, copy, Exhibit P.6. Thus, argued the learned counsel in view of the said order, no mutation could be sanctioned in favour of the State Government on the basis of the order dated 11th June, 1960, copy, Exhibit D.2, declaring 92 kanals 16 marlas of land as surplus in the hands of Bakhtawar Singh.