K.KANNAN, J. - (1.) There is no representation for the petitioners and I hasten to disposed of the writ petitions with the records available and with the assistance of the counsel for the respondents.
(2.) In the writ petition No.1869 of 1990, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the authorities under the Haryana Ceiling and Land Holdings Act of 1972. The contention in the petition is that the father was owning 82 acres of land in the village Jaswanti and after consolidation, he had been left with only 63 acres of land and was under his self-cultivation. The property to the extent of 16.22 acres was declared as surplus and an objection had been taken to the effect that the lands had never been utilised and it had never fallen into the possession of the petitioners but had remained with his father and as such even after coming into force the Haryana Ceiling and Land Holdings Act, the father continued in possession. The attempt of the petitioners was, therefore, to say that the holding could not have been treated as surplus in his hands.
(3.) The first order declaring surplus was on 17th August, 1960 and the subsequent order under the amended provision of the new Act was on 12th November, 1981. It is pointed out by the respondents that the writ petition has been filed without exhausting the remedies under the Act and hence not maintainable. The learned counsel for the respondents states that non-utilization of surplus area till the date of vesting would be of no consequence and would make no difference as per the decision in Amar Singh and others v. Ajmer Singh and others-1994(2) CLJ. He also refers me to the decision in Sampuran Singh v. State of Haryana and others-1994(Sup2) SCC 206, that held that even if the original landowner is allowed to remain in possession after the property is declared as surplus, it would not create any right in favour of the person that continues in possession and a fresh computation cannot be made on the holding treating the property held by the original owner as belonging to him. The same issue has also been answered by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Haryana v. Birsala-2004(1) PLR 458 that holds that once an order declaring a property as surplus is issued under Haryana Ceiling of Land Holding Act of 1972 and it is allowed to become final, the holding cannot be redetermined only because the surplus land had remained un-utilized till the commencement of the Act of 1972. The Bench was answering the issue of whether a State could reopen the proceeding relating to the surplus lands which had become final. In this case, there is a reversal of situation of the petitioner seeking for reopening the proceedings on the ground that the property that had been treated as surplus was allowed to be retained by the original owner namely the father of the petitioner.;