Bhopal Singh vs State of Haryana

V.K. Bali, J.—Bhopal Singh seeks quashing of the proceedings initiated by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Panipat exercising the powers of the Prescribed Authority under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act which have been initiated so as to dispossess him from the land purchased by him.

Brief facts that need to be noticed are that one Bhullan son of Harnam was presumably owner of land in excess of permissible limit as is prescribed under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1953). On 11.6.1954, aforesaid big landowner gifted away his land in favour of his seven sons namely Raghbir, Jai Singh, Moola, Sulfi, Antu, Nehru and Ramphal. Mutation in respect of gift was duly entered in the revenue records. The land, thus, stood transferred in favour of his sons Raghbir etc. with effect from 11.6.1954. The petitioner is a vendee from one of the sons of Bullan namely Raghbir. He purchased only 4 Kanals 9 Marlas of land entered in Killa No. 53/20/3 in the year 1977. The aforesaid sale was evidenced by registered sale deed. The case of petitioner is that physical possession of land was taken by him on transfer of the land and he continues to be in possession of the same till date. The land of Bhullan, however, without issuing any notice to Raghbir was declared surplus and Killa No. 53/20/3 that came to the share of Raghbir under the gift, mention of which has been made above, also came under the land which was declared surplus. Considering the aforesaid land to be surplus in the hands of Bhullan attempt was made to take possession of the land and it is at that stage, the case of the petitioner is, that he came to know that the same has been declared surplus way back in the year 1963. Being apprehensive that a small piece of land purchased by him would be taken possession of and allotted to eligible tenants, he has approached this Court for the relief indicated above by way of filing the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

The solitary point pleaded and pressed into service by Shri Y.K. Sharma, for the petitioner, is that even though the fact of gift came to be duly recorded in the revenue record and was known to the authorities concerned yet no notice was given to Raghbir. As referred to above, the land of Bhullan was declared surplus in the year 1963 i.e. about nine years after the gift was made in favour of Raghbir. The learned Counsel contends that under Rule 6 notice to transferee is mandatory while determining the surplus area of a landowner and nongrant of an opportunity of hearing renders the orders declaring the surplus area to be illegal. For the aforestated stand, the learned Counsel relies upon Smt. Ankauri and another v. Financial Commissioner and others, 1971 Punjab Law Journal page 570.

Mr. Trikha, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the State, however, contends that it is that holding of the landowner which was with him on 15.4.1953 that had to be taken into account and all transfers made thereafter had to ignored while computing the surplus area of the landowner. That being so, the learned Counsel contends that the gift made by Bhullan in favour of his sons had necessarily to be ignored and, therefore, no exception can be had to the order vide which the land in the hands of Bhullan was declared surplus. For the aforestated contention, Mr. Trikha relies upon State of Punjab v. Bhalle Ram and others, 1963 Punjab Law Journal 65.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the point projected by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has merit and, therefore, this petition must succeed. It may be true that for determining the holding of a big landowner it is the holding that is obtainable on 15.4.1953 which is to be considered and the transfers effected thereafter may be ignored but that will not make any difference for the reason that Raghbir who was recorded landowner at that time was not given any opportunity. The facts of Smt. Ankauri''s case (supra) would reveal that one Smt. Ankauri widow of Prema, owned 60.68 Ordinary Acre as (equivalent to 18.96 Standard Acres of Land) on 15.4.1953. This entire area was gifted by her in favour of Baldev Singh adopted son of Prema in December, 1953. Subsequently respondent No. 1 in the said case acquired occupancy tenancy rights in 91.96 Ordinary Acres (equivalent to 26.74 Standard Acres) and became its owner on 8.1.1954. In the year 1961, the Collector, Surplus Area, Sirsa started proceedings under the provisions of the Act for determining surplus area held by Baldev Singh adopted son of Prema and vide orders dated 25.9.1961, he declared 91.86 Ordinary Acres (equivalent to 28.71 Standard Acres) to be surplus area in the hands of Ankauri widow of Prema. Ankauri''s appeals and revisions against the aforesaid orders were dismissed. Thereafter Writ Petition was filed. In the Writ Petition filed in this Court also, Smt. Ankauri met with no success and when the matter came up in an appeal before this Court, it was held that the transferees have to be heard before the determination of the surplus area. This judgment has been upheld in number of cases subsequently and has stood the test of time. In view of the fact that Raghbir was admittedly not heard as notice was ever given to him, the order passed by the Collector declaring land surplus which came to be owned and possessed by Raghbir by way of gift cannot be held to be valid and has, thus, to be set aside. This Writ Petition is, thus, allowed and it is directed that in consequence of the declaration of surplus area by the Collector (Agrarian) in which the land purchased by the petitioner from Raghbir also came to be recorded as surplus would not affect the rights of petitioner. It shall, however, be open to the authorities, issue notice to the petitioner (as Raghbir has already sold the land) and determine the question and while doing so the points raised by Mr. Trikha shall also be gone into by them. It shall be open to authorities to consider the effect of Section 10A and the petitioner shall also be given an opportunity to rebut the same.

The petition is, thus, allowed in the manner, indicated above. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.