Udey Ram and others vs State of Haryana

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents from taking possession of the land on the ground that the same belongs to the petitioners One Gugan was the owner of the land. The possession of the disputed land was declared as surplus by an order of the Collector in the proceeding taken under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the ''Act'').

According to the petitioners, the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioners in a partition decree dated June 17, 1958, and, therefore, the same has to be excluded from the holding of Gugan. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the declaration of surplus area in the hands of Gugan does not vest in the State and that the land has not been utilised and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be dispossessed from the said land by the Government.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the land in question was the subjectmatter of the partition decree in 1958 in favour of the sons of Gugan and, therefore, the land could not be included in the holding of Gugan and it is to be excluded from his holding. The land devolved on the petitioners by way of partition decree. He also further contended that the property has not been utilised by the respondentState. Therefore the property remained in possession of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be dispossessed from the land in dispute.

I am unable to agree with any of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Even if there is a partition decree in 1956, there is nothing in the Act which excludes any land partitioned after the commencement of the Act and prior to July 31, 1958. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to section 19(a) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. Section 19(a) only deals with future acquisition by the landowner. Section 19(a) does not deal with the case where the landowner parts with the title by transfer of property or in any manner. The learned counsel did not draw my attention to any provisions in the Act which enables the landowner to claim exemption of any property on the ground that he transferred the property or the property was the subjectmatter of partition after the commencement of this Act and prior to any particular date. In the absence of any such provision, any transfer of land including partition has to be ignored. Therefore, the partition decree in favour of the sons of Gugan in the year 1956 has to be naturally ignored for the purposes of determining the surplus area held by the landowners under the provisions of 1953 Act.

It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the property is not vested in the Government and that the landowner and the petitioners continued to be in possession of the land and, therefore, the Government cannot dispossess the petitioners. Section 12 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, clearly stipulates that the area declared surplus or tenants permissible area which has not so far vested in the State Government under the Punjab Law and the area declared surplus under the Pepsu Law shall be deemed to have vested in the State Government with effect from the appointed day and the area which may be so declared in the pending proceedings to be decided under the Punjab Law or Pepsu Law shall be deemed to have vested in the State Government with effect from the date of such declaration. Therefore, when the land in possession has been determined to be surplus land under the Act, it stands vested in the Government irrespective of the fact whether the Government has taken possession of the same or whether the said land has been utilised or not. Therefore, there is a statutory vesting of the land in the Government. It cannot be said that the Government has no power to take possession of the land which has been declared surplus under the Act.

Further the orders under the Act have become final. The petitioners filed this writ petition in 1981, i.e., after a lapse of nearly eighteen years from the date of the order under the 1953 Act. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector under the Act determining the surplus area of Gugan, they should have moved the authorities for rectification of the order. Remedies like appeal and revision are also provided under the Act. The writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay on the part of the petitioners and also existence of alternative remedy to the petitioners.

The petitioners also cannot get any relief and they cannot be deemed to be the aggrieved parties. Gugan who is the landowner has not challenged the orders determining the surplus area under the Act. The petitioners who claimed to be the decreeholders filed this writ petition challenging the order which has become final. It is not open to the petitioners to challenge the same now as they only inherited the rights of their father Gugan.

In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.