Mohan Singh (Dead) Through Kirpal Singh ... vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 November, 2009
17. Possibly, no one can dispute about the law laid down in
the aforesaid judgments, but to my mind, the same are not mutatus-
mutandi applicable as the facts in those cases are entirely different
and are distinguishable from the facts of the present controversy,
because the petitioner -Mohan Singh had neither claimed any
exemption of his land from the surplus pool nor his counsel has
pressed the ground of challenging the declaration of surplus area as
such, nor he had claimed the re-opening of the entire matter as
contained under section 8 (1) of the Haryana Act. As mentioned
above, the claim of the petitioner was limited to the extent of legal
proposition for granting the benefit under section 8 (3) of the Haryana
Act only relatable to the selection of permissible area by the big
landowner from whom he had purchased his land by registered sale
deed. To me, rather the law laid down in the aforementioned
judgments advances the cause of the petitioner as much as the
vesting of absolute right in State under the Haryana Act of that land
which was declared surplus under the Punjab Act is concerned in this
respect. Moreover, section 8 (3) of the Haryana Act has not been
interpreted in any of the judgments relied on behalf of the
respondents.