NANU Vs. MANDIR SITA JI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are eight revision petitions and matter in dispute is same in all these revisions. A single order will dispose of all these revisions. A copy of order may be placed in each file.

(2.) REVISION petitions have been filed against the order dated 23.10.1998 passed by Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and order dated 3.6.1998 passed by the Collector, Karnal and order dated 30.5.1997 passed by District Revenue Officer, Karnal by which appeals filed by the revisionist-petitioners have been dismissed.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner stated that the land in question had been declared surplus in 1964 and property under question vested under Section 12 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. He further stated that mutation in respect of land had also been sanctioned in favour of the State even before filing of the application for ejectment, hence the respondent cannot be termed to be the landowner of the land and even application filed under Section 5-A of the Act moved by the respondent has been declined. In support of this contention he cited 1994 PLJ 28 and 1978 PLJ 228 wherein it has been held that under Section 10-A clauses (a) and (b) once land declared as surplus area right of utilisation of surplus area remains with State Government and landowner has only right to receive rent from tenant on surplus land. There is no provision in the Act under which right, title and interest of landowner vests even after declaration of land as surplus area. He also further cited 1987 PLJ 457 and 459 in which it has been decided that surplus area utilised deemed to have vested in State Government with effect from appointed dated 24.1.1971 and landowner has no right to get resettled tenant ejected on account of non-payment of rent. Ejectment of resettled tenant on account of non-payment of rent not competent since area stands vested in Government as per Section 12(3) of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The ejectment application still pending and order dated 30.5.1997 rejecting preliminary objection, was an interlocutory order against which appeal was not competent. The land shall be deemed to have vested in the State with coming into effect of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. He further contended that it can also not be termed that there still exists relationship of landlord and tenant as there cannot be two owners of the same property at one time. Property has been vested in the State of Haryana so respondent cannot claim ownership. Legally when application filed under Section 5-A of the Act was dismissed, he could not have sought the ejectment of the petitioners. He further argued that under the provisions of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and Rules framed thereunder the present petitioner is entitled to the allotment of land in accordance with law as the same has been vested in the State without any encumbrance. He cited 1993 PLJ 458 wherein the Court had held that Rules 13, 15 and 18 of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act fix the responsibility of landlord/tenant to have alternative land allotted. The respondent cannot claim rent from the petitioner. He further argued that after coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, owner has been divested of his rights in the property and same has been vested in the State and application filed by the respondent should have been dismissed. Right of any kind vests with the State and State is well within its power and jurisdiction to utilise the said property under the scheme of utilisation as per rules. No ejectment proceedings of any kind by the owner of surplus land is permissible under law and owner of surplus land can at the maximum recover the rent from tenants in recovery proceedings and no ejectment proceedings can be allowed to proceed.