Punjab-Haryana High Court
Janga And Ors. vs Zora Singh And Ors. on 14 August, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2004)136PLR27
Author: K.S. Garewal
Bench: K.S. Garewal
JUDGMENT N.K. Sodhi, J.
1. This order will dispose of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 108 and 109 of 1993 as they involve identical questions of law and fact. For the sake of convenience the facts are being taken from Letters Patent Appeal No. 108 of 1993.
2. This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 4th September, 1992 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby Civil Writ Petitions 6438 and 7657 of 1990 were allowed and the order of the revenue authority set aside holding that Zora Singh, Jagdip Singh and Sunder Harpal Singh were entitled to get their land excluded under Section 8 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. Jasmer Singh father of the writ petitioner was a big land owner owning 593 bighas and 15 biswas of land. By an order dated 26th June, 1960 the prescribed authority declared 284 bighas and 13 biswas of land as surplus in the hands of Jasmer Singh. This order has since become final because it was never challenged by any one in appeal or in revision before any of the higher authorities. Jasmer Singh has three sons namely Zora Singh, Kashmira Singh and Balbir Singh. He divided his land in four equal parts and gave three equal parts to his sons namely Zora Singh, Kashmira Singh and Balbir Singh by a family settlement through transfer deed dated 26th April, 1958 which was registered on 29th April, 1958. The possession of the respective shares was also transferred to the writ petitioner and his two brothers. Mutation No. 595 was entered on the basis of the aforesaid registered deed. The surplus land even though declared in June, 1960 had not been utilised by the State Government till the coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the year 1977 the State Government allotted the surplus land to the appellants herein who were the respondents in the writ petition. When they took steps to take possession of the allotted land, two applications were moved before the prescribed authority under Section 8 of the Act, one by Zora Singh and the other by Jagdip Singh and Surinder Harpal Singh sons of Kasmira Singh, It was alleged that since the land was transferred to them by their father through a registered transfer deed prior to 30th day of July, 1958, therefore, the land in their possession was liable to be exempted from the surplus pool. Both the applications were dismissed by the prescribed authority holding that the surplus land had vested in the State Government on coming into force of the Act and, therefore, the surplus area proceedings which stood concluded in the year 1960 could not be reopened. Feeling aggrieved by this Order, Zora Singh and the other two applicants filed an appeal before the Collector, Ambala which was dismissed by order dated 24th February, 1987. Still not satisfied the applicants went up in revision before the Commissioner Ambala Division which also met the same fate. The Commissioner observed that after the coming into force of the Act the land in dispute vested in the State Government and it was rightly allotted to the allottees (appellants herein) and, therefore, Zora Singh and the other two applicants could not get the surplus proceedings reopened. Zora Singh and the two applicants could not filed another revision petition before the Financial Commissioner which too was dismissed on 26th December, 1986. It was then that Zora Singh and the two applicants filed Civil Writ Petition 6438 and 7657 of 1990 in this Court challenging the orders passed by the revenue authorities. Both these writ petitions came to be heard together and were allowed by the learned Single Judge who while relying on a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Ajmer Singh v. The State of Haryana and Ors. 1987 Rev. L.R. 563 observed that the land transferred by way of partition by a big landowner prior to 30th day of July, 1958 could not be taken into account while declaring the surplus area under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and, therefore, the surplus area declared in the year 1960 could not be utilised by the State Government as it had not vested in it. Hence these appeals.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that the appeals deserve to succeed. It is common case of the parties that the surplus area in the hand of Jasmer Singh the big landowner was declared by the prescribed authority on 26th June, 1960 and that order had become final. It is true that the surplus area had not been utilised by the State Government for settling the tenants or by way of allotment till the Act came into force on 24th January, 1971. Section 12(3) of the Act provides that the area declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act which had not vested in the State Government shall be deemed to have vested in it with effect from the appointed day. It is, thus, clear that when the Act came into force the surplus area which had been declared by the prescribed authority on 26th June, 1960 under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act came to vest in the State Government. Once it vested in the State Government the latter was entitled to utilise the same in accordance with the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. The application filed by Zora Singh under Section 8 of the Act to get his land excluded from the surplus pool and thereby restraining the State Government from utilising the same could not be entertained after the land vested in the State Government on the coming into force of the Act. The learned Single Judge in our view fell in error in declaring that the area transferred to Zora Singh by virtue of a family settlement had to be excluded because the transfer had been made prior to 30th day of July, 1958.
4. Learned Single Judge placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Ajmer Singh's case (supra). It is true that in Ajmer Singh's case this Court had observed that the land transferred by a big landowner prior to 30th day of July, 1958 had to be excluded from the surplus pool but that judgment in appeal was reversed by the Apex Court in Amar Singh and other v. Ajmer Singh and Ors. . (1994-3)108 P.L.R. 433 (S.C.). The learned Judges of the Apex Court placed reliance on the observations of their earlier judgment in Smt. Bhagwanti Devi and Anr. v. State of Haryana and another. (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 423 (S.C.).
5. As already observed the surplus area proceedings have become final under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act could not be reopened in terms of Section 12(3) of the Act after 24th January, 1971. The application filed by Zora Singh was liable to be dismissed. The view that we have taken also finds support from the two judgments of this Court in Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana (2002-1)130 P.L.R. 605, Financial Commissioner, Haryana v. Shri Chand and Ors. (2002-1)130 P.L.R. 615 In these cases also the learned Judges relied on the observations made by the Supreme Court in Amar Singh's case (supra).
6. For the reasons recorded above, the appeals are allowed, the judgment of the learned Single Judge set aside and Civil Writ Petitions 6438 and 7657 of 1990 dis missed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Sd/-
K.S. Garewal, J.