Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Subsequent Purchasers in Land Ceiling Case — Saving Clause Under Section 33(2) of Haryana Ceiling of Land Act, 1972 Excludes Application of New Act to Pending Proceedings Under Repealed Act. The Court Held That Determination of Surplus Area Includes Selection of Surplus Pool, and Vendees Cannot Claim Benefit of Sections 8(3) and 9(3) of the 1972 Act.

Civil appeal against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in LPA No.55 of 2010, which set aside the Single Judge's order and upheld the orders of the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner regarding the inclusion of land sold to the appellants in the surplus pool.

The appellants sought to set aside the Division Bench judgment and restore the Single Judge's order directing the prescribed authority to consider the benefit of Section 8(3) of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Act, 1972, so that the land sold to them is not included in the surplus pool.

The appellants, as subsequent purchasers of land from Mohan Singh, challenged the inclusion of that land in the surplus pool of the original land owner Jaipal Singh, claiming entitlement to benefits under Sections 8(3) and 9(3) of the 1972 Act.

The Collector declared surplus area in 1960; the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner dismissed appeals; the High Court remanded in 1962; the Collector declared surplus in 1978; the Commissioner remanded in 1979; the prescribed authority rejected Mohan Singh's objection in 1983; the Collector allowed Mohan Singh's appeal in 1984; the Commissioner reversed in revision; the Financial Commissioner dismissed revision in 1987; the Single Judge allowed the writ petition in 2009; the Division Bench allowed the LPA in 2010.

Whether the proceedings for determination of surplus area initiated under the 1953 Act and pending on the enforcement of the 1972 Act are governed by the saving clause under Section 33(2) of the 1972 Act, thereby excluding the application of Sections 8(3) and 9(3) of the 1972 Act. Whether determination of surplus land under the 1953 Act includes selection of plots for the surplus pool. Whether the appellants and their predecessors-in-interest were entitled to the benefit of Section 8(3) and 9(3) of the 1972 Act.

Appellants argued that the predecessors-in-interest purchased land in 1974 and were entitled to benefits of Section 8(3) and 9(3) of the 1972 Act, which require the land owner to first include his own land in the surplus pool. They contended that Section 33(2) does not exclude the application of the 1972 Act to selection of surplus pool, and that the sale deed was valid between vendor and vendee. Respondents argued that Section 33(2) of the 1972 Act saves pending proceedings under the 1953 Act, creating a deeming fiction that eclipses the new Act until those proceedings are concluded. Therefore, Sections 8(3) and 9(3) cannot be invoked. They also contended that the sale deed in 1974 was void as the land was already surplus and vested in the State.

The saving clause under Section 33(2) of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Act, 1972 creates a deeming fiction that proceedings for determination of surplus area pending under the repealed Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 at the commencement of the 1972 Act shall be continued and disposed of as if the 1972 Act had not been passed. This excludes the application of Sections 8(3) and 9(3) of the 1972 Act to such proceedings. The term 'determination of surplus area' includes the selection of specific plots for the surplus pool. Therefore, vendees who purchased land after the 1972 Act came into force cannot claim the benefit of those provisions.

Section 33(2) of 1972 Act creates a deeming fiction , it eclipses the operation of the new Act until proceedings for the determination of surplus area under the 1953 Act were disposed of in accordance with the law. Neither Section 9 nor Section 8(3) of 1972 Act can be invoked in the present case.

The proceedings began under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 with the Collector declaring surplus area in 1960. Appeals and revisions were dismissed. A writ petition was allowed in 1962, remanding the matter. The Haryana Ceiling of Land Act, 1972 came into force on 23.12.1972. On 18.06.1974, Jaipal Singh sold land to Mohan Singh. The Collector declared surplus in 1978. The Commissioner remanded in 1979. The prescribed authority rejected Mohan Singh's objection in 1983. The Collector allowed Mohan Singh's appeal in 1984. The Commissioner reversed in revision. The Financial Commissioner dismissed revision in 1987. Mohan Singh sold land to appellants in 1989. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition in 2009. The Division Bench allowed the LPA in 2010. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in 2020.

• Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953:
• Haryana Ceiling of Land Act, 1972: Section 8(3), Section 9(3), Section 12(3), Section 33(2), Section 33(2)(ii), Section 33(2)(iv)