ANOOP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 29.9.2004 passed by learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, in which the petitioners had challenged the orders dated 15.5.1961 (Annexure P- 1), 7.9.1961 (Annexure P-3), 8.1.1963 (Annexure P-4), 18.4.1983 (Annexure P- 7) and 2.8.1983 (Annexure P-9) whereby area measuring 34.14 (ordinary acres) in the hands of Jia Lal, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, has been declared surplus and the gift of land made by him in favour of his son and grand-son (present appellants) has been held to be invalid.

(2.) STATED briefly, the facts of the case are that Jia Lal predecessorin- interest of the appellants was the absolute owner in exclusive possession of agricultural land measuring 94.14 acres in the revenue estate of village Samani Bholan, District Hisar as on 15.4.1953. As per the appellants, vide registered gift deed dated 18.4.1957, Jia Lal transferred an area measuring 58.67 acres to his son Karam Chand and grand-son Bharat Singh. Vide order dated 15.5.1961 (Annexure P-1), the Collector Surplus Area, Hisar, declared area measuring 34.14 (ordinary acres) as surplus in village Samani Bholan, Tehsil Fatehabad of the then District Hisar as detailed in Appendix 'A' attached with the order, without any notice to the appellants (transferees) ignoring the transfer dated 18.4.1957 made by Jia Lal in their favour. Order dated 15.5.1961 (Annexure P-1) was challenged by Jia Lal by way of an appeal before respondent No. 4, who vide his order dated 7.9.1961 (Annexure P-3) allowed it in part and remitted the case back to the Collector Surplus Area, with a direction to allow Jia Lal to select permissible area of his choice. After the remand, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Collector, the surplus area case was transferred to the Special Collector, Punjab, without any notice to Jia Lal himself or said transferees/appellants. The Special Collector, Punjab vide his order dated 8.1.1963 (Annexure P-4) consigned the case to the records while observing that notice was given to Jia Lal, however, specific directions of the Commissioner/respondent No. 3 given vide remand order dated 7.9.1961 (Annexure P-3) were not considered. As per the appellants, they had no notice of surplus area proceedings at any stage up to the passing of order dated 8.1.1963 (Annexure P-4) and they came to know about the decision of surplus area case of Jia Lal for the first time on 11.3.1983. Copy was applied on 11.3.1983 itself and an appeal (Annexure P-5) along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay was preferred. The Commissioner vide his order dated 18.4.1983 (Annexure P-7) dismissed the appeal observing that "It could not be believed that the petitioners were not aware of this order".

(3.) ON notice of this appeal, the respondent-State of Haryana has put in appearance. At the time of admission, it was ordered that status quo in respect of nature, title and possession of the subject land shall be maintained.