DEVA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment I dispose of two civil writ petitions bearing No. 3792 of 1980 titled Deva Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1997(3) RCR(Civil) 24 (P&H) : and No. 4921 of 1995 titled 'Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana and others, as in the opinion of this Court the common question of law and fact is involved in both these writ petitions.

(2.) FIRST of all, I take up the pleadings of the parties in writ petition No. 3792 of 1980 in which the prayer has been made by the petitioners for the quashment of the impugned orders passed by the Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner, respectively. In this writ petition, the case set up by the petitioners is that they are landowners and residents of village Bastara, Tehsil and District Karnal. Smt. Nimbo owned land in village Bastara and she was a big landowner. Her area was assessed under rule 6(6) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 by the Collector, Karnal, on 13.7.1960, 82 standard acres 4-3/4 units of land was declared surplus. On 30.4.1959 Smt. Nimbo transferred all her holdings in the name of the petitioners and some others who were her legal heirs by virtue of a civil Court decree and mutation to this effect was also entered in the names of transferees on 17.7.1959. This decree was ignored by the authorities in view of the provisions of Sections 10-A and 19-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Smt. Nimbo died on 6.1.1968 and up to 6.1.1968, the land which was declared surplus was not utilised by the State Government for settling the ejected tenants. Some area of Smt. Nimbo was allotted on 16.9.1976 to respondents No. 5 to 7, therefore, the petitioners and other right-holders who are heirs of Smt. Nimbo filed an application on 15.7.77 before the Prescribed Authority under Section 8 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 because Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act had been repealed by Section 33 of the Haryana Act. The petitioners submitted that Smt. Nimbo died in the year 1968 and the surplus area was not utilised during her life time, therefore, the petitioners on the death of Smt. Nimbo became small landowners in accordance with the provisions of Haryana Act, 1972 and were entitled to retain the land as their permissible area in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. The petitioners are the legal heirs of Smt. Nimbo and they had inherited the land from Smt. Nimbo in the year 1968. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 8, they are entitled to retain the land in dispute. The application which was filed by the petitioners was accepted by the Prescribed Authority on 3.8.1978 vide Annexure P-1. Respondents No. 5 to 7 aggrieved by the order of Prescribed Authority filed an appeal before the Collector, which was allowed vide orders dated 2.7.1979 Annexure P-2. The petitioners then filed a revision before the Commissioner against the order dated 2.7.1979 (Annexure P-2) but their revision was dismissed on 29.8.1980 vide Annexure P-3. Therefore, the petitioners filed a revision before respondent No. 2 on 1.10.1980 which was also dismissed on 7.10.1980 vide Annexure P-4. Now the challenge has been given by the petitioners to the orders Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-4 on the plea that these orders are without jurisdiction. The land was declared surplus on 13.7.1960 and Smt. Nimbo died on 6.1.1968. During the life time of Smt. Nimbo, the land was not utilised by the State Government for settlement of rejected tenants. In the year 1968, the petitioners inherited the land in dispute being her legal heirs and they became small landowners, therefore, they are entitled to retain the land in dispute as their permissible area under Section 8 of the Haryana Act. It was also pleaded that the order of utilisation in favour of allottee-tenants was passed and implemented after the death of Smt. Nimbo and as such order is bad. It was also submitted that in case of death of landowner after declaration of surplus area either under the Punjab Act or under the Pepsu Act, the heirs of big landowners are entitled to retain the land and such land do not vest in the State Government. It is further alleged in the writ petition that after the death of Smt. Nimbo her surplus case was to be decided again by Revenue Authorities in accordance with the provisions of law and if the land in the hands of her heirs is not found surplus then the same cannot be utilised for resettling the tenants. Since the petitioners have become small landowners, therefore, the State Government is not competent to utilise the surplus area of Smt. Nimbo after her death which took place on 6.1.1968. With the above major averments, challenge has been given to the orders Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-4.

(3.) RESPONDENTS No. 5 to 7 have alleged in their written statement that the petitioners have deliberately concealed the material facts. According to these respondents, the petitioners did not receive any land by way of inheritance on the death of Smt. Nimbo and no mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in their favour. Therefore, they are not entitled to claim the property. The answering respondents had deposited the first instalment of price of the land allotted to them. The possession of the land was delivered to them on 26.5.1977 and they have become the owners of the land allotted to them. The petitioners had filed an application under Section 8 of the Haryana Act on 15.7.77 before the Prescribed Authority which was not legally maintainable. The land which previously belonged to Smt. Nimbo and had been declared as surplus area under the Punjab Act, had vested in the State under the Haryana Act and possession of the land was delivered to the answering respondents on 26.5.1977 long before the petitioners filed application on 15.7.1977. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to succeed to the estate of Smt. Nimbo on the ground of inheritance. On merits, these respondents have tried to justify the orders annexures P-2, P-3 and P-4 by taking those very pleas which were taken by respondents No. 1 to 4 and they have prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.