STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAM KALI ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of three L.P. As bearing Nos. 389 of 2003, 82 of 2003 and 246 of 2003 as common question of law and facts arise. For the sake of convenience, the facts have been taken from LPA No. 389 of 2003. As per the facts of the present case, the land of the big land owner Sham Lal was declared surplus on 21-11-1966 by the Collector Agrarian Sonepat. Earlier the big landlord Sham Lal son of Rattan Singh had sold 84 Bighas 3 Biswas of land vide sale deed dated 27-10-1953. The mutation was sanctioned on 12-12-1953 to Smt. Shanti Devi. Thereafter Shanti Devi vide sale deed dated 29-11-1955 transferred the same to Smt. Kishan Devi. Kishan Devi died on 13-05-1966 and the land stand inherited by the petitioners in the writ petition and respondents herein in the L.P.A. However, as mentioned above, 24 acres of land was declared surplus in his hands on 21-11-1966. Admittedly, this order of the Collector has become final and has not been challenged before any Court. Meanwhile, the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 came in operation. Ram Kali and Lalita Devi, who are petitioners in the writ petition and had inherited the land on the basis of the Will, filed an application before the prescribed authority under Section 8 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 with a request that since the transfer has taken place prior to 30-07-1958, the land be excluded from the surplus pool. The prescribed authority vide order dated 08-08-1978 accepted the application and after ignoring the land acquired by the State Government and the one which had been purchased by the tenants, directed the remaining land measuring 105 Kanals 17 Marlas be released from the surplus area of the land owner. The tenants who were settled on this land, filed an appeal against this order before the Collector. The Collector, vide his order dated 14-02-1979, set aside the order dated 08-08-1978. The revision petition filed by the petitioners in the writ petition and the respondents herein, was dismissed on 17-08-1979. Petition under Section 18(6) was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 26-10-1982. The order dated 14-02-1979 passed by the Collector and the order dated 26-10-1982 passed by the Financial Commissioner were challenged in the writ petition. Learned Single Judge allowed the petition and granted benefit of Section 8 to the petitioners in the writ petition on the ground as envisaged in the Section itself that since the transfer had taken place prior to 30-07-1958, they were entitled to the protection and the lands so transferred, should be released from the surplus area. Learned counsel for the petitioner states in the LPA No. 389 of 2003 as well as the learned counsel for the petitioners, who were tenants, settled on this land in LPA No. 246 of 2003 and LPA No. 82 of 2003 argued that the land of the big landlord was declared surplus in the year 1966 under the old Act of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. Hence, the same vested with the State. As per Section 10(b) of the old Act, the protection of the land sold prior to 1958, is not available to the land owners with respect to the land on which the tenants had been settled. The Section 8 of the new Act does not cover a land which is utilised. Apart from this, the land declared surplus under the old Act, had vested in the Government under Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling Act w.e.f. 24-01-1971. Since, the petitioners had filed this application under Section 8 of the Act only on 28-08-1976, all proceedings under the old Act on this day stood completed and nothing was pending on the appointed date when the new Act came into force. The land, therefore, stood utilised and vested in the Government. Moreover, it has been judicially settled by the Apex Court that the land declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 cannot be re-opened after it stood vested in the State. In the present case, the land was declared surplus in the year 1966 and the said order, declaring the land surplus, has become final. No appeal till date has been filed against the order declaring the land surplus. The land stood allotted to the tenants in the meanwhile. The order vide which the land became surplus, has become final. The same cannot be allowed to be re-opened under the garb of Section 8 of the new Act, specially in view of Section 12 of the same Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents and petitioners in the writ petition, has argued that there is no question of vesting of the land, in question, in the State Government under Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling Act. Learned Single Bench had rightly considered the provisions of Section 8 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, while holding that since the transfer of the land is prior to 30-07-1958, the said transfer was subject to protection and the land so transferred was to be left out while determining the surplus land of the landlord. According to him, Section 8 and Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 are not inconsistent and both these provisions can be reconciled.

(2.) THE contention of learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. Certain admitted facts that arise are that the land was of the big landlord and was declared surplus on 21-11-1966 under the old Act of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The land was declared surplus on 21-11- 1966. The order, declaring the land surplus, has become final. It was never challenged. When the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, came into force, the tenants moved an application under Section 8 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 before the prescribed authority for getting the land released from the surplus area as the land stood sold/transferred in the year 1958 and declared surplus as late as in the year 1966 ought to be determined in view of Section 8 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.

(3.) ON the bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, it appears that the transfers made by big land owner prior to 30-07-1958 were valid and cannot be ignored for the purpose of determining surplus area in his hands. The facts, in the present case, however, do not allow protection under Section 8 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. In the present case, the land was declared surplus by the Collector (Agrarian), Sonpeat. This order of the Collector became final and has not been challenged before any Court. Once, the order has become final under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, thus the concession available under Section 8 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 is not available to the respondents in such a situation as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Janga v. Zora Singh, 2003(4) RCR(Civil) 811 which relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Amar Singh and others v. Ajmer Singh and others, 1994(3) RRR 90 : (1994(3) Punjab Law Reporter 433. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amar Singh (supra) while holding that there is no provision under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 to re-open the proceedings finalised under the Punjab Act, observed as follows :- " We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The High Court fell into patent error in allowing the writ petition on the basis of the ratio in Jaswant Kaur and anr. v. State of Haryana and anr., 1977 PLJ 230. The said case is not even remotely relevant to the facts of the present case. The learned Judge failed to appreciate that in the present case the surplus proceedings under the Punjab Act had been finalised as back as 1961/1962. There is no provision under the Haryana Act to reopen the surplus determined under the Punjab Act. Based on wholly erroneous assumptions the learned Judge allowed the writ petition. The Letters Patent Bench of the High Court mechanically dismissed the appeal in limine."