BALWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS common question of law and facts arises in both these cases, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No. 549 of 1993 purchased the land of an extent of 66 kanals 1 marla from Baljit Kaur respondent No. 4, under registered sale deed dated 10.6.1977 for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- executed by the power of attorney holder of Baljit Kaur namely Surjit Singh who is her husband (respondent No. 5). As the vendor Baljit Kaur and her husband Surjit Singh owned land exceeding the permissible limit under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act) they submitted a declaration under the Act. The Collector assessed the total holding of respondents No. 4 and 5 as 897 kanals 3 marlas which came to be 1567 kanals 6 marlas of 'C' category land. By an order dated 9.2.1979 the Collector held that the respondents No. 4 and 5 were entitled to 132 kanals of 'C' category land as permissible area and declared the remaining land as surplus.

(2.) THE petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 554 of 1993 purchased 60 kanals 8 marlas of land form Baljit Kaur under registered sale deed dated 14.6.1974 for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. The sale deed was executed by her husband Surjit Singh (respondent No. 5) as the power of attorney holder of Baljit Kaur.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the land purchased by the petitioners belonged to the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent and her husband 5th respondent are entitled to one primary unit as permissible area. The sale deeds in favour of the petitioners came to be executed after the appointed day i.e. 24th January, 1971. Under Section 8(1)(b) of the Act a bona fide purchaser after the appointed day is protected. It is no doubt true that the burden of proving that the transfer is a bona fide one shall be on the transferor. Under sub-section 3 of Section 8 of the Act the surplus area shall be taken in the first instance from the area left with the landowner and the transferees were to be touched only if the surplus area could not be made good from the area left with the landowner. Therefore, the authorities have to see whether the surplus area can be taken possession of from the landowner from the area left with him after excluding the land transferred in which case a notice to the transferees is also necessary as their rights will be affected. There is not dispute of the fact that no notice was given to the petitioners who are the transferees of the 4th respondent. It has been consistently held by this Court in a number of decisions that a notice is required to be given under the provisions of the Act to all the affected persons. It has been held by Full Bench of five Judges in Harnek Singh v. State of Punjab, 1971 PLJ 727 that a transferee is a person interested in participating in the proceedings for declaration of surplus area and he must be given an opportunity of being heard to avoid his interest prejudicially affected before declaring the surplus area of his transferor. It is further held that even if the statute and the rules framed thereunder are silent on the point it appears to be necessary for satisfying the principles of natural justice without which it is impossible to maintain rule of law to give an adequate opportunity to the transferee to safeguard his interest in proceedings with can plausibly culminate in decision prejudicially affecting him and his property rights.