Shiv Narain and others vs State of Haryana

I.S. Tiwana, J. (Oral)

The following facts are not in dispute in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Dharam Singh, predecessorininterest of the present petitioners and his brother Chatra who were coowners were held to be big landowners by the Collector vide his order dated 29th November, 1959, Annexure P1 and an area measuring 23.10 Standard Acres was declared to be surplus in their hands under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. On 8th January, 1970 petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 filed a civil suit against Dharam Singh and succeeded in obtaining a declaration to the effect that they were the owners of 4/5th share of Dharam Singh''s land measuring 471 kanals 4 Marlas in all. This decree was granted on a concession/consent given by Dharam Singh deceased on 2nd February, 1970 and its copy is Annexure P.3. Dharam Singh died on 20th May, 1978 and mutation regarding his succession was attested in favour of all the 12 petitioners on 24th July, 1980 and its copy is Annexure P.4.

The Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short, the Act) came into force with effect from 23rd December, 1972. The provisions of this Act were made effective for all intents and purposes with effect from the appointed day, that is, 24th January, 1971. Section 12(3) of the Act lays down that the area declared surplus in the hands of a landowner under the Punjab Law, i.e. Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and the Pepsu Law, i.e. the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 shall be deemed to have vested in the State Government with effect from the appointed day. This sub section was brought on the statute book by the Amending Act (17 of 1976) and was made operative with effect from 23rd December, 1972 as has been interpreted by a Full Bench of this Court reported as Jaswant Kaur and another v. State of Haryana and another, 1977 P.L.J. 230.

The primary submission of Shri A.S. Nehra, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order Annexure P.1 declaring certain area in the hands of Dharam Singh, deceased, as surplus stands nullified or overridden by the provisions of Section 6 of the Act and in view of that the petitioners are entitled to the determination of their respective surplus areas in the light of the provisions of the Act. Besides, refuting this stand of the petitioner, it is contended on behalf of the respondentauthorities that the petitioners are guilty of suppression of material and correct facts and the nonpleading of the necessary parties. In support of this stand of theirs; it is pointed out that the area which had been declared surplus in the hands of Dharam Singh, deceased, vide Annexure P.1 was utilized in terms of the Haryana Utilization of Surplus and other Areas Scheme, 1976 on 23rd July, 1980 and the said area has been allotted to 11 eligible tenants and possession thereof was given to them on 27th July, 1980. The said tenants having acquired an interest in the surplus area are the necessary parties to this litigation and in their absence the petition is liable to be dismissed for the nonimpleading of the necessary parties. To say that the petitioners have deliberately suppressed the Correct facts, it is pointed out that the only allegation made in the petition is that the respondentauthorities are taking active steps to utilize the area which was declared surplus in the hands of Dharam Singh, whereas as a matter of fact this area had been utilized on 23rd July, 1980, i.e. about 6/7 months earlier to the filing of this petition. These facts were neither denied nor contested by the petitioners either by filing a replication or any additional affidavit.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioners have no case either on merits or in view of the objections taken by the respondents.

The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is devoid of merit for the short reason that the impugned order, Annexure P. 1, is in no way inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, and, therefore, is not vitiated by the provisions of Section 6 of the Act. Mr. Nehra, however, explains that the criteria or the basis for determination of the surplus area of a landowner under the Act and under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 is materially differnt and the area which may be surplus under the latter Act may not be surplus under the former. That is so, but it does not mean that the Act anywhere provides that the determination of the surplus area under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act is in any way rendered void or ineffective. Rather a reading of the various provisions of the Act and more particularly section 12(3) and 33 by necessary implication indicate that the statute recognises the validity or goodness of the order of determination of surplus area of a landowner under the Punjab Law. Further I find that for the purposes of the Act the petitioners cannot at all be treated as landowners on the appointed day, i.e. 24th January, 1971. As has already been pointed out above the petitioners succeeded to Dharam Singh, deceased on his death on 20th May, 1978. Earlier transfer of land in favour of some of them vide decree, Annexure P.2 has to be ignored in view of the dictum of their Lordships of the Full Bench in Jaswant Kaur and another''s case (supra) wherein it has been held that transfers of land in excess of the permissible area under the Punjab Law or the Pepsu law are protected only if those are made prior to 30th July, 1958. The transfer in favour of the petitioners 1 to 4 vide Annexure P.3 not being a transfer prior to that date is obviously not saved in view of Section 8 of the Act. It is thus patent that on the appointed day the petitioners had no interest whatsoever in the land in question. In the absence of the same they cannot maintain that the surplus area in their hands which devolved on them on the death of Dharam Singh needs to be redetermined. Further, I also find that in view of the abovenoted two objections with regard to the suppression of the material facts and the nonimpleading of the necessary parties, the petitioners have to fail. As already pointed out the facts stated on behalf of the respondentauthorities in this regard are not disputed.

For the reasons recorded above this petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.