Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned agricultural land in Haryana subject to land ceiling legislation. Maru Ram, father of respondent Ajmer Singh, owned 61 standard acres 9 units of land when the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 came into force on April 15, 1953. A civil court partition decree had divided the holding between Maru Ram and his three sons Prithi Singh, Surat Singh, and Ajmer Singh. In proceedings under the Punjab Act, the Collector, Karnal, on March 10, 1961 declared 9 acres and 3-3/4 units of land owned and possessed by Maru Ram as surplus after considering the partition decree and other material. The three sons filed a review petition, which was dismissed on merits by the Collector on July 26, 1962. These orders achieved finality and were not disputed. The Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 came into force on December 23, 1972 and repealed inconsistent provisions of the Punjab Act by Section 33. Section 12(3) of the Haryana Act provided that surplus area declared under the Punjab law which had not vested in the State Government before the appointed day would be deemed to have vested on the appointed day, January 24, 1971. Consequently, the surplus land declared in 1961/1962 vested in the State of Haryana. The land was allotted to the appellant and respondents 3 and 4 in 1981. Ajmer Singh was dispossessed and possession was handed over to the appellant. Ajmer Singh challenged the allotment by revision before the Collector, Kurukshetra, who dismissed the petition on May 26, 1982 holding that the surplus proceedings had attained finality and could not be reopened. Ajmer Singh then filed an application before the Sub Divisional Officer, Thanesar for correction of revenue records based on the civil court partition decree dated June 16, 1958, but that application was also dismissed because the decree had already been considered by the Collector. Thereafter, Ajmer Singh filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. A learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the allotment order, relying on the full Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jaswant Kaur & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (1977) P.L.J. 230. A Letters Patent Bench dismissed the appeal in limine. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had fallen into patent error because Jaswant Kaur's case was not remotely relevant to the present facts. The Court emphasized that surplus proceedings under the Punjab Act were finalised as far back as 1961/1962 and there was no provision under the Haryana Act to reopen such determination. The Court rejected the respondent's argument that continued possession until 1981 and non-utilisation of surplus land made a difference. The language of Section 12(3) was unequivocal and clear: surplus land declared under the Punjab Act stood vested in the State, and non-utilisation till the date of vesting was of no consequence. The Court found support in Smt. Bhagwanti Devi & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (1994) 1 Scale 861. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge dated September 23, 1987 and the order of the Letters Patent Bench dated November 3, 1987, dismissed Civil Writ Petition No. 163 of 1986, and awarded costs of Rs.11,000 to the appellant payable by respondent Ajmer Singh.
Headnote
A) Land Ceiling - Surplus Area Determination - Finality of Orders - Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 - Collector Karnal declared 9 acres 3-3/4 units surplus on 10-03-1961 after considering partition decree and material; review petition dismissed on 26-07-1962 and orders attained finality; such finality could not be reopened under subsequent law or by writ court - Held that High Court erred in ignoring finality and allowing writ petition challenging allotment based on old surplus proceedings (Paras not mentioned). B) Land Ceiling - Vesting of Surplus Land - Section 12(3) Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 - Surplus land declared under Punjab Act but not vested before appointed day deemed vested in State from appointed day 24-01-1971; non-utilisation or continued possession with landowner till 1981 irrelevant - Held that land stood vested in State and allotment to appellant was valid; respondent's possession did not affect vesting (Paras not mentioned). C) Judicial Review - High Court Error in Applying Precedent - Writ Jurisdiction - High Court relied on Jaswant Kaur & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (1977) P.L.J. 230 which was not remotely relevant; no provision under Haryana Act to reopen Punjab Act surplus; Letters Patent Bench mechanically dismissed appeal in limine; Supreme Court set aside both orders and dismissed writ petition - Held that appellate court allowed appeal and restored allotment with costs (Paras not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in relying on Jaswant Kaur's case and quashing allotment of surplus land when surplus proceedings under Punjab Act had attained finality and Section 12(3) of Haryana Act vested land in State; whether non-utilisation of surplus land and continued possession with landowner until 1981 affected vesting in State
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of learned single Judge dated 23-09-1987 and Letters Patent Bench order dated 03-11-1987 set aside; Civil Writ Petition No. 163 of 1986 dismissed; appellant entitled to costs of Rs.11,000 payable by respondent-Ajmer Singh.
Law Points
- Section 12(3) of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act
- 1972 vests surplus land declared under Punjab law in State from appointed day
- finality of surplus proceedings under Punjab Act
- no provision to reopen surplus determination under Haryana Act
- non-utilisation of surplus land till date of vesting is irrelevant
- Jaswant Kaur's case not applicable
- reliance on Bhagwanti Devi's case
