Sube Singh vs State of Haryana

S.S. Sodhi, J.

The controversy here is with regard to 69 Kanals and 1 Marla of land, now in the cultivating possession of the petitioner Sube Singh.

On April 15, 1953, the day on which the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred as `the Act'') came into force, the land in question was in the ownership of Puran Singh and Jagminder Singh, but the surplus land of the landownerSampuran Singh and Jagminder Singh by the order of the Collection (Agrarian), Jhajjar of February 25, 1963. The possession of the land has however, continued with the tenants ever since and this land was not utilized either under the 1953 Act or the Haryana Land Reforms Act, 1972. It is the case of the petitioner that he came to hold this land as a tenant since 195859, but according to the return filed by the respondentState, his possession began in 1960. Be that as it may, there is no dispute that the petitioner has continued in possession ever since and further that he was not in any way related to the landownersSampuran Singh or Jagminder Singh

On August 25, 1971, the petitioner applied for the purchase of the said land under Section 18 of the 1953 Act. This application was eventually allowed on November 30, 1973 and in terms thereof, the petitioner paid Rs. 5,000/ as price of the land of the landowners. What has now led to the filing of the present writ petition is the application filed by the petitioner on November 15, 1976 (Annexure P/1) praying therein that the said land be excluded from the surplus pool and in the alternative it may be allotted to him. This prayer was declined by the Collector (Agrarian), Jhajjar, by his order of November 30, 1976. The appeal against this order was dismissed by the Commissioner, Ambala, on February 18, 1977 and finally the revision petition too was dismissed by the financial Commissioner, Haryana by his order of July 25, 1979.

It will be seen that on the day on which the 1953 Act came into being the land in question was in the actual cultivating possession of tenants and it has continued in the possession of the tenants ever since though the petitioner came to occupy it as a tenant only in 195859 or at any rate, in 1960. This Court in Bahadur Ram and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1969 PLJ 372, has held that change of tenants would not affect the permissible area of the tenant if the land has remained under one or the other. This thus being the position in law, the fact the petitioner came on to this land, as a tenant, only 1960, if not earlier, is not a matter of any consequence in so far as his claim to the permissible area as a tenant, is concerned.

Further, the more important and significant aspect of the case here is that the land in question came to be declared surplus without any notice ever having been served upon the tenant, namely, the petitioner, who was in actual cultivating possession thereof. Such an order passed behind his back cannot operate to his detriment. In other words, before the Collector proceeded to declare the land in question to be surplus, it was incumbent upon him to give notice and to heir the petitioner. The petitioner, as tenant, is clearly entitled to his permissible area as defined in the Act. Such notice not having been given, the impugned orders of the Collector, Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. It shall, however, be open to the Collector to consider the matter after affording due opportunity to the petitioner to be heard.

This writ petition is consequently hereby allowed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500/.