Thath Singh vs State of Haryana

D.V. Sehgal, J.

Angad son of Hira Lal, father of the petitioners, owned 52 standard acres of land in village Uplana, tehsil and district Karnal (now in Haryana) on 15.4.1953. He failed to file any declaration and hence did not reserve his permissible area as required by the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter called `the Punjab Law''). Consequently, the Collector on his own declared 22 standard acres of his land as his surplus area vide order dated 27.6.1960 Annexure P.1. However, at that time, consolidation proceedings had not been completed in the village. After consolidation of holdings, Angad submitted a list of Khasra numbers of his own to reserve the same as his permissible area and on that basis the Collector, Kaithal, vide order dated 18.5.1961 Annexure P.2 declared 363 Kanals 13 Marlas of land as surplus area in his hands. In spite of the order Annexure P.2. which was never challenged by Angad, he continued in possession of the land which was declared as surplus area, as the same was never utilized by the State. On 18.7.1970, 5/6th share of the land measuring 426 Kanals 6 Marlas with Angad was mutated in the names of the petitioners on the basis of judgment and decree dated 22.12.1969 passed by the learned SubJudge, Kaithal, vide mutation Annexure P.3. The Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter called `the Haryana Act'') came into force on 23.12.1972. Angad filed a declaration under section 9 of the Haryana Act with the Collector who, after verifying the fact that the land in the hands of Angad and the petitioners fell well within the limits of permissible area under the Haryana Act, held that Angad was not a big landowner vide order dated 7.3.1978 Annexure P.4. Later, however, mutation in respect of the land which was declared surplus by the Collector vide Annexure P.2 was sanctioned in the name of the State Government under section 12 (3) of the Haryana Act. Copy of the mutation in this regard is Annexure P.5.

The petitioners have challenged through the instant writ petition the mutation order Annexure P.5 primarily on the ground that on 23.12.1972 when the Haryana Act came into force Angad had no suprlus land in his hands, if the provisions of the said Act are kept in view. According to them, Angad had a right to reserve permissible area for his sons, the petitioners, under the Haryana Act. They further contend that the order of the Collector Annexure P.4, which clearly holds that Angad was entitled to take permissible area for his five minor children and separate units for his adult sons and thus the land left with him was less than the permissible area, had never been challenged by the respondent before any higher authority and in the face of this order mutation Annexure P.5 cannot be sustained.

The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention as set out in the petition relied on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ranjit Ram v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 1981 P.L.R. 492. In my view the law laid down in Ranjit Ram''s case (supra) has no application to the facts. In Ranjit Ram''s case (supra) the Punjab Land Reforms Act 1972 had been considered and interpreted. To bring out the sharp distinction between the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act,1972 and those of the Haryana Act it would suffice to notice section 8 of the former Act and section 12 (3) of the latter Act, which are reproduced hereunder :

Section 8 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972.

``Vesting of unutilized surplus area in the State Government. Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, customs or usage for the time being in force, but subject to the provisions of section 15, the surplus area, declared as such under the Punjab Law or the Pepsu Law, which has not been utilized till the commencement of this Act and the surplus area declared as such under this Act shall, on the date on which possession thereof is taken by or on behalf of the State Government, vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances and in the case of surplus area of a tenant which is included within the permissible area of the landowner, the right and interest of the tenant in such area shall stand terminated on the aforesaid date : Provided that where any land falling within the surplus area is mortgaged with possession only the mortgagee rights shall vest in the State Government."

Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.

``12. (3) The area declared surplus or tenant''s permissible area under the Punjab Law and the area declared surplus under the Pepsu Law, which has not so far vested in the State Government shall be deemed to have vested in the State Government with effect from the appointed day and the area which may be so declared under the Punjab Law or the Pepsu Law after the appointed day shall be deemed to have vested in the State Government with effect from the date of such declaration.''''

A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 the surplus area declared under the Punjab Law, which has not been utilised till the commencement of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, and the surplus area declared as such under the Punjab Land Reforms Act shall on the date on which possession thereof is taken by or on behalf of the State Government, vest in the State Government. As against this, under the Haryana Act the area declared surplus under the Punjab Law, which had not vested in the State Government, shall be deemed to have vested in the State Government with effect from the appointed day, i.e. 24.1.1971; in other words before 23.12.1972 when the Haryana Act was brought into force. No doubt, in view of the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 the Full Bench in Ranjit Singh''s case (supra) held as under :

``That a landowner whose land has been declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (the Punjab Law) or under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, who has not been divested of the ownership of the surplus area before the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, is entitled to select the permissible area for his family and for each of his adult sons in view of the provisions of section 4 read with section 5 (1) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act.''''

Since, however, under section 12(3) of the Haryana Act, Angad, father of the petitioners, was divested of the surplus area declared in his hands vide order Annexure P.2 on 24.1.1971 before the said Act came into force, he was not entitled to select permissible area for his family or for each of his adult sons (the petitioners) under the provisions of the Haryana Act.

As such I find no force in this petition, which is dismissed with no order as to costs.