K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THE writ petition was filed seeking for permission for exemption to file the impugned order of the Financial Commissioner purported to have been passed on 25.02.1992 rejecting the civil revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order that was passed on a review application filed by the petitioners in the year, 1988. The review application was to review an order passed on 30.06.1960 by the Special Collector, Punjab, holding the properties held by Prithi Singh and Chander Singh to fall beyond the ceiling limit and declaring certain properties as surplus. The review was sought oh the ground that the exemption from computation of holdings that were available to banjar qadim, Jadid, and gair mumkin had all been computed within the holdings and consequently, assessment of total holdings of the landowner had been wrongly made. This review application was made invoking the powers under Section 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act read with Section 8 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The authority refused to review the order already passed.
(2.) THERE would be very serious error in making the attempt to review an order declaring certain properties as surplus since a declaration made under 'Punjab Law' has serious implications under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Section 12 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act sets out the manner of vesting of surplus area and it details the fact that the surplus area of a landowner shall be, from the date from which it was declared as such, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government for public purpose. This vesting which takes place under the provision of statute cannot be stultified by a landowner coming with a plea after 32 years and seeking for a redetermination and to make provision for exemption to be granted in respect of certain categories of land. The counsel for the petitioners places three justifying circumstances, according to him (i) the land which was declared as surplus which has not been utilized by the State; (ii) the sons had attained majority on the date of coming into force of the Haryana Act and the holding of each one of the sons will have to be considered under the Haryana Act; and (iii) there had been a transaction of sale in respect of certain properties on 25.12.1957 and the property sold must have been excluded. He would contend that the property has been held in his possession right through and this court had also granted an order of stay. The counsel would also rely on the judgment of this court rendered in the batch of cases in Smt. Banti Devi and others v. The State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 19001 of 1991 holding that a property that is declared surplus under the Punjab Law but remaining unutilized will have the benefit of being considered for exemption from the ceiling area under the Haryana Act. Again if the original owner had died and succession had opened, the decision was rendered citing a Full Bench ruling in Sardara Singh and others v. The Financial Commissioner and others, : 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 744. I must observe a decision rend red by this court is legally suspect since the reliance of Sardara Singh (supra) was clearly misplaced. Sardara Singh (supra) was a case decided under the Punjab Land Reforms Act and different considerations operate for consideration of applicability of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The decision in Banti Devi (supra) cannot act as an appropriate precedent, particularly in view of the 4 decisions of the Supreme Court viz., Amar Singh v. Ajmer Singh, : (1994 -3)108 P.L.R. 433 (S.C.); Bhagwanti Devi v. State of Haryana, : (1994 -2) 107 P.L.R. 423 (S.C.); Ram Swarup v. S.N. Maira : (1999)1 S.C.C. 738 and Sampuran Singh v. State of Haryana, : (1994 -2)107 P.L.R. 420 (S.C.), all of which have held that if declaration had been made under the Punjab Law setting out certain properties as being in surplus of the ceiling area, the fact that the property remained unutilized by the State and the landowner continued to be in possession are wholly irrelevant. The decisions also underscore an important feature that neither a sale nor succession could operate to stultify a vesting that took place under Section 12 of the Haryana Act. There is no scope for a State to undertake a review after nearly 3 decades to render nugatory the statutory vesting under Section 12. Indeed it shall be impermissible for a public authority to reopen a case of property which is statutorily vested in the State. There is no merit in the writ petition, it is dismissed. The interim order of stay already granted shall stand vacated. The State shall be at liberty to take immediate possession of the property in accordance with law.;