Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Financial Commissioner, Haryana And ... vs Kela Devi And Another on 31 October, 1979

Kamla Devi Widow Of Hans Raj vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on 12 April, 2013

The private respondents, thereafter, filed two separate writ petitions, which have been allowed by holding that as the land has not been "utilised" i.e., possession has not been taken by the State, the land continues to vest in the big landowner and as he gifted the land to the private respondents before enactment of the 1972 Act and as in the meanwhile, he passed away, the application for purchase cannot be allowed, till such time as the land is not assessed for surplus area in the hands of legal heirs of the big landowner, i.e., the private respondents. While holding that the land, in dispute, has not been "utilised" before or after the death of the big landowner and as no declaration of surplus area was made under the 1972 Act, it was held that the applications for purchase cannot be considered. The following judgments were relied, in support of the conclusions:- Jeet Ram and others v. Gobind and others, 1971 PLJ, 766, Ujjagar Singh(dead) by his LRs v. The Collector, Bhatinda and another-AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2623, Financial Commissioner, Haryana v. Smt. Kela Devi-AIR 1980 Supreme Court 309, and Jasbir Kaur and another v.Financial Commissioner(Appeals), Punjab and another-1996 PLJ 205.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - R Bhalla - Full Document

Kaku And Ors. vs Savitri And Ors. on 17 November, 1995

"On the death of Shri Dayal fresh assessment of surplus area was to be made. It is stated that it has not been done. These heirs had vested rights. The land has not been utilised and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Financial Commissioner, Haryana State and Ors. v. Smt. Kala Devi and Anr., AIR 1980 SC 309, the process of utilization contemplated by Section 10-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, is complete in respect of any surplus area only when possession thereof has been taken by the allottee or the allottees. and the other formalities have been completed. A complete tide does not pass to the allottee on a mere order of allotment.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - R P Sethi - Full Document

Ranjit Ram vs The Financial Commissioner, Revenue ... on 15 May, 1981

20. Under the Punjab Law, each individual, whether minor or major was entitled to a separate permissible area. There was no concept of family as a unit under that Law. After the declaration of surplus area, the same could be utilized by resettlement of tenants. The utilisation was complete only on taking of possession by the resettled tenants (See Financial Commissioner, Haryana v. Smt. Kala Devi, AIR 1980 SC 309). The landowner in spite of resettlement continued to be the owner of the surplus area and was entitled to the rent from the resettled tenants and at no stage the State Government became owner of the surplus area. Under the Pepsu law also each individual, whether minor or major, was entitled to a separate permissible area and there also there was no concept of family as a unit. After the declaration of the surplus area, the moment possession of the surplus area was taken by the State Government, it vested in it free from all encumbrances and the surplus area so vested could be utilised for the resettlement of tenants. Here, the ownership of the landowner ceased and the State became the owner. This brings me to the consideration of the various relevant provisions of the Act.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 49 - Full Document

Ajit Kaur And Ors. vs The Punjab State And Ors. on 30 May, 1980

According to this, once the surplus area was utilised under the Act for resettlement of ejected tenants or others, the subsequent death of the landowner and inheritance by the heirs was not to have any effect on the surplus area already determined. From a combined reading of Sections 10-A and 10-B, the intention of the legislature was made clear beyond dispute that till the utilization of the surplus area, in fact, by the state, the death of a landowner could result in diminution or reduction of the surplus area already determined or declared as none could manipulate his own death to save himself from the rigors of the law and his heirs were entitled to own land up to the permissible limits in their own right and their interest as landowners had to be given equal weight in the agrarian economy as was contemplated under the statute. It has been the consistent view of this Court that even if some land of a particular landowner had been declared surplus by the authorities under the Act, after his death, before the surplus area is utilised his entire land has to be re-considered in the hands of his heirs for the purpose of re-determination of surplus area. Reference may be made to the Division Bench judgment in Financial Commr., Harayana v. Smt. Kela Devi.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Ujjagar Singh (Dead) By Lrs.Etc vs Collector, Bhatinda & Anr.Etc on 1 August, 1996

A similar controversy had arisen in the case of Financial Commissioner Haryana State & Ors. vs. Smt. Kela Devi and Anr., (1980) 1 SCC 77, in connection with the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. Section 10-A(a) enabled the State Government or any officer empowered by it in that behalf to utilize any surplus area for the resettlement of tenants ejected or to be ejected under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of that Act. In this connections it was said:
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - N P Singh - Full Document

Ujjagar Singh (Dead) By Lrs. Etc vs The Collector, Bhatinda & Anr. Etc on 1 August, 1996

A similar controversy had arisen in the case of Financial Commissioner Haryana State & Ors. vs. Smt. Kela Devi and Anr., (1980) 1 SCC 77, in connection with the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. Section 10-A(a) enabled the State Government or any officer empowered by it in that behalf to utilize any surplus area for the resettlement of tenants ejected or to be ejected under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of that Act. In this connections it was said:
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 25 - N P Singh - Full Document

Krishna Kumari & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Ors. on 27 November, 1998

Whether all the steps indicated in the Rules, referred to above for utilisation of land, were observed and followed or not, is a question which has been considered by all the authorities before whom the matter was agitated and they have concurrently held against the appellants and have recorded the finding that possession of the land allotted to Mangat Ram was delivered to him. We would normally have not entered, in the present proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution, into those questions of fact, but Mr. Sachar has Vehemently contended that all the steps for utilisation of surplus land were not taken, specially possession thereof was not delivered to Mangat Ram and, therefore, the mandatory requirements indicated in the Act and the rules were violated which has impelled us to scrutinise the findings in the light of the arguments raised before us as also the material brought on record through various affidavits by the parties in this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ghasitu Singh And Others vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 5 August, 2008

In Ishwar Devi's case (1983 PLJ 363) relying on the ruling in Jaswant Kaur's case it has been held by the learned Single Judge that land on which tenants had been settled in 1965 before the enforcement of the Haryana Act will not be protected by the provision of Section 8. In the present case the surplus lands having been utilized in the year 1963 the petitioners cannot be given the benefit of the provisions of Section 8 of the Haryana Act even if the transfers are deemed to have taken place before 30- 7-1958."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Harkarnail Singh & Others vs Financial Commissioner on 11 February, 2009

From the contrasting pleas raised on behalf of the petitioners and the State, it is first required to be determined whether the land, which was declared surplus, stood utilised or not. Counsel for the petitioners would refer to the observations made in the case of Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others Vs. Smt.Kela Devi and another, 1980 P.L.J.121 to indicate the steps which would be essential to complete the utilisation of a land or area declared surplus. It is observed in this case that the allotment of a land is an Civil Writ Petition No.5659 of 1982 :7: initiate stage in the process of utilisation of surplus area and it does not complete the process because it is necessary for the allottee to obtain a certificate of allotment, take possession of land within period specified for the purpose and to execute a "Qabuliat" or "Patta" in respect thereof. It is accordingly observed that the process of utilisation contemplated by Section 10-A of the Act is complete in respect of any "surplus area", only when possession thereof has been taken by the allottee or the allottees and the other formalities have been completed. The argument that mere order of allotment would have the effect of completing the process was rejected as having no force. The counsel, thus, would contend that land declared surplus with the father of the petitioners was not utilised. To say that the possession of the land was not handed over to respondent No.3, the counsel would refer to application, Annexure P-2, filed by respondent No.3 himself in the year 1972. In this application, respondent No.3 has mentioned as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 Next