MAHA SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH COLLECTOR AGRARIAN, PANIPAT (PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY UNDER THE SURPLUS LAND ACT) AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Atma Ram, son of Dari -yai Lal was a big landowner of village Kakodar Tehsil Panipat District Karnal. He sold land to the petitioners on May15, 1958, measuring 55 bighas 6 biswas regarding which mutation No. 129 was duly sanctioned in their favour. Since then they are cultivating the suit land according to their shares. On April 3, 1970, the area of the said Atma Ram, the big landowner, was declared surplus without any notice to the petitioners. It included the land purchased by the petitioners from the said Atma Ram. According to the petitioners, after the coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act), the transfers of the Land made by the big landowners prior to July 30, 1958, were protected and that being so the land purchased by the petitioners on May 15, 1958, was to be excluded while declaring the area surplus in the hands of the big landowner Atma Ram. In order to get the land released from the surplus pool under the Act, they moved applications before the Collector, Agrarian Surplus, Panipat, on April 27, 1981. Three separate applications were filed by the petitioners which were dismissed vide Annexures P. 1, P. 2 and P. 3 dated October 12, 1981. The petitioners challenged the said order of the Collector by way of this writ petition which was earlier dismissed by the Motion Bench on January 18, 1982 That was subsequently reviewed vide order dated November 27, 1986, and therefore, the earlier order dated January 18, 1982, was recalled. On March 27, 1987, the writ petition was, thus, admitted.

(2.) AS a matter of fact, the matter already stands concluded between the parties vide order dated November 27, 1986, wherein it has been held, relying upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P.L.J. 230, that the other transfers of land in excess of permissible area under the Punjab Law or the PEPSU law would be protected if the transfers were made prior to July 30, 1958. In view of the above -said Full Bench judgment of this Court and the order of this Court dated November 27, 1986, this proposition could no more be contested and therefore, the transfer made in favour of the petitioners by Atma Ram, the big landowner on May 15, 1958, was protected.

(3.) I do not find any merit in this contention. Admittedly, the petitioners have been in possession throughout. The State Government never dispossessed them even when the area was declared surplus in the year 1970. As soon as the State Government wanted to dispossess them, they moved the Collector immediately thereafter.