BIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Collector, Agrarian, Ambala, vide his order dated 31st October, 1966 (Copy Annexure 'A' with the writ petition), declared 18 Standard Acres and 13 units of land as surplus in the hands of the petitioner and also imposed a cut of 4 Bighas 16 Biswas, comprising of Khasra Nos. 176 and 177 Min. in Patti Acharjan, Ambala City. Feeling aggrieved against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, who dismissed the same vide his order dated 4th April, 1967 (Copy Annexure 'B' with the writ petition). The revision petition before the Financial Commissioner was also dismissed vide order dated 15th June, 1967 (Copy Annexure 'C' with the writ petition). Feeling aggrieved against these orders, the petitioner has come to this Court by way of this writ petition.

(2.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the transfer of equity of redemption rights in favour of the wife and two sons on 5th May, 1955, is not void under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and, therefore, the land in question, was not surplus with the petitioner at that time. This contention of the learned counsel has no force. Since the disposition was made after 15th April, 1953, the same was barred by Section 10-A of the Act. Reference may be made to State of Haryana etc. v. Sampuran Singh etc., 1975 PunLJ 383, in this respect.

(3.) The second point taken by the learned counsel is that the land allotted to the petitioner is situated in Haryana State and certain land is held by him in village Bara Sidhupur which is situated in the State of Punjab, and, therefore, according to him, the land held in two different States could not be considered as one unit under the Act. This contention also has no force. Declaration of surplus area in the present case was made on 31st October, 1966, i.e. before the State of Haryana came into existence, and, therefore, the liabilities were incurred and the rights in the Government had accrued under the law in force at that time. All these things would continue even after 1st November, 1966, as if no change in the old law had taken place. The result would be that the Government would be able to utilise the area declared surplus before 1st November, 1966, for the re-settlement of the tenants even after that date.