HARBANS LAL,J. - (1.) THIS Civil Writ Petition has been filed by Bharpai wife of Jitu as well as Piari (deceased through Santra, Bimla,Saroj and Patasa) wife of Shree Chand, residents of Issapur Kheri, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat, against the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, The Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector Agrarian, Rohtak, Dhani Ram and Jage Ram son of Sheo Chand under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 31.1.1978 (Annexure P- 1), 17.8.1979 ( Annexure P-2) and 12.2.1980 (Annexure P-4) passed by the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Shrimati Bhagwani, made a gift on 13.1.1960 in favour of her daughters Bharpai and Piari, referred to above. Mutation No. 1444 dated 29.10.1963 of the area measuring about 34 standard acres was sanctioned. As its consequence, the petitioners became full owners. of the land. The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum- Collector Agrarian, Rohtak-respondent, vide ex parte order dated 9.12.1976 declared the area of the petitioners surplus with the original land owner Bhagwani under Section 24-A(2) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 ( for brevity, 'the Act' ), without giving any notice or opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, who came to know about this order in the month of December, 1977 when the respondents tried to dispossess them from the land. The petitioners moved an application before the above mentioned respondent-Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector Agrarian, Rohtak, on 12.1.1978 on the ground that they had become full owner in the year 1960 and had a right to be heard before passing any order against their interest. This respondent rejected their application vide order dated 31.1.1978 (Annexure P- 1). They carried appeal to the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala- respondent, who also dismissed the same vide order dated 17.8.1979 (Annexure P-2). Then, they went in revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, who also dismissed the same vide his order dated 12.2.1980 (Annexure P-4). On the advice of a lawyer at Rohtak, the petitioners filed miscellaneous application before The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector Agrarian, Rohtak and got the stay of dispossession. That application was dismissed 20 days ago and now the authority is bent upon to oust the petitioners from the land in dispute. The impugned orders, Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-4 have been challenged on the grounds embodied in this petition. In their joint written statement, the respondents No. 1 to 3 have averred that Bhagwani made the gift of agricultural land in favour of the petitioners on 13.1.1960 and not on 13.1.1980. The mutation of land measuring 34.4 standard acres was sanctioned vide Mutation No. 1444 dated 29.10.1963 in favour of the petitioners, who never became the owners of the land on the basis of the alleged gift as the same was executed on 13.1.1960 i.e. after the declaration of surplus area on 1.1.1960. Out of the total holding measuring 73 standard acres and 3-1/4 units belonging to Bhagwani, 30 standard acres was retained by her as permissible area. The land measuring 34 standard acres and 4 units was declared as tenants permissible area, whereas 8 standard acres and 15-1/4 units was declared as surplus area. Since the said land was declared as such on 1.1.1960, any transfer by way any means becomes null and void. The petitioners were never parties to the issue or the case, therefore, the question of giving any notice to them or hearing them did not arise. The so called transfer of land by way of gift on the said date was illegal and was to be ignored outrightly. The order under Section 24-A(2) ibid was, therefore, legal. The area left out as "tenants permissible area" was got released from these tenants and was shown under self cultivation. The entire holding of Bhagwani got reduced by 10 acres as a consequence of consolidation which took place in the year 1965-66. Therefore, the Collector Agrarian, Rohtak after allowing 30 standard acres as permissible area, declared 33 standard acres and 6-1/4 units as surplus. The impugned orders are strictly in accordance with the provisions and the rules framed thereunder. The claim of the petitioners that they were interested parties and entitled to notice is untenable and based on wrong assumptions. The transfer of land by Bhagwani on 13.1.1960 by way of gift was void ab initio and the land never vested in the petitioners. Therefore, the question of issuance of any notice does not arise. Bhagwani transferred the whole of the tenants permissible area in favour of the petitioners on 13.1.1960 after the declaration of this land as tenants permissible area. The findings of the learned Courts below regarding the gift made by Bhagwani are correct and legal. She executed the gift simply to reduce the area. In these circumstances, this petition merits dismissal with costs.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.;