KANHYA LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three revision petitions and one appeal against the orders of Commissioner Ambala dated 14.8.1984 under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act reversing the orders of Collector Agrarian, Kalka dated 12.5.1983. The facts and law points involved in these cases are similar and these are being disposed of by same order.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that Ude Ram alias Nikku who was owner of entire land measuring 420 Bighas 14 Biswas in village Devi Nagar, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala died issueless in 1929. His widow Smt. Kirpi became limited owner of the land until her life time as per Customary Law. Smt. Kirpi made a gift of half-portion of the land on 11.3.1929 to Shri Jainendra Gurukul Panchkula who is petitioner in ROR No. 64 of 1984-85. On 12.3.1929, Smt. Kirpi executed 'Will' in respect of remaining half-portion of the land also in favour of Shri Jainendra Gurukul Panchkula. The gift deed and the 'Will' were challenged in Civil Court by one of the collaterals of Ude Ram and both the suits were decreed on 18.1.1932 against Smt. Kirpi whereby the gift as well as the 'Will' were declared null and void.

(3.) MEANWHILE , surplus area case of petitioner Shri Jainendra Gurukul Panchkula was decided by Collector Agrarian Kharar on 2.8.1960. The Collector Agrarian treated the entire land holding of Smt. Kirpi inherited by her from her husband as the ownership of petitioner Shri Jainendra Gurukul Panchkula on the basis of the earlier gift deed and 'Will' made in the year 1929. Total land- holding in possession of the petitioner as on 15.4.1953 was assessed at 85 standard acre and 13 unit which was reduced to 78 standard acre and 7-1/4. unit due to change in the quality of land. Out of this, 56 standard acre and 1 unit was declared as tenant's permissible area as it was under the tenancy of old tenants and the remaining area of only 22 standard acre and 6-1/2 unit was left with the petitioner as their permissible area which was actually less than the required permissible area of 30 standard acre. Thus, nothing was declared as surplus with the petitioner. While passing this order, the Collector Agrarian, Kharar did not implead Kanhya Lal adopted son of Smt. Kirpi who had become owner of half-portion of the land. Kanhya Lal filed an appeal against the order of Collector Agrarian, Kharar, before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, which was decided by the Commissioner on 19.5.1977 whereby the order of Collector Agrarian dated 2.8.1960 was set aside and Collector Agrarian was directed to decide the case afresh after hearing Kanhya Lal successor of Smt. Kirpi. Collector Agrarian passed fresh orders dated 12.5.1983 by which he declared Kanhya Lal to be owner of half-share of land and after allowing 30 standard acre to each of the 2 co-sharers i.e. Shri Jainendra Gurukul Panchkula and Kanhya Lal, 16 standard acre and 12-3/4 unit were declared as tenant's permissible area in the hands of Atma Ram, Puran and Dhani Ram old tenants. There were 4 sets of appeals filed before Commissioner Ambala against the order of Collector Agrarian dated 12.5.1983. The Commissioner vide his impugned orders dated 14.8.1984 accepted the appeal of Dhani Ram appellant (now respondent) who was one of the old tenants and was beneficiary of the tenant's permissible area. The other three appeals were rejected. The Commissioner set aside the orders of Collector Agrarian dated 12.5.1983 and restored the orders of Collector Agrarian, Kharar, passed on 2.8.1960 by which 56 standard acre and 1 unit was declared as tenant's permissible area. Between the orders of Collector Agrarian, Kharar, dated 2.8.1960 and that of Commissioner Ambala dated, 14.8.1984, two more developments had taken place. Dhani Ram-respondent had been allotted 16 Bighas 11 Biswas land on 8.11.1976 as tenant's permissible area which was declared in 1960 and he also deposited the first instalment towards purchase of this land. Also land in question had been acquired by the State for public purpose. Taking the tenant's permissible area declared in 1960 as having vested in the State on 24.1.1971 under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, the Commissioner ordered that the allotment of land relating to Dhani Ram respondent in 1976 was valid and that he had become owner of that land. Since the other two old tenants Atma Ram and Puran had not been allotted any land nor deposited the instalment for that, it was decided by the Commissioner that the allotment and deemed ownership of all land in favour of Dhani Ram would be at the cost of other two old tenants. The Commissioner further ordered that the rest of the tenant's permissible area out of 56 standard acre 1 unit land stood vested in the State and no compensation was required to be paid for this acquisition by the State except what is permissible under Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act.