K.S.GAREWAL,J - (1.) THIS as well as the connected petitions involve the interpretation of Section 8(1) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Ceiling Act) and exemption of land from surplus area by the State Government. This provision excludes land which had been purchased before July 30, 1958 from being declared surplus. However, lesser questions also arise but they would be answered on the basis of the decision which is taken on the main point of law.
(2.) THE facts of the case are being taken from CWP 5188 of 1990. Ghasitu Singh's categoric averment is that he and his three brothers had bought 204 Kanals 2 Marla from Bishan Singh for valuable consideration vide sale deed dated June 12, 1958. They had been put in possession of the land, mutation 395 was also entered in their favour on the basis of the sale deed. Petitioners were not related to the vendor and were small landowners. On July 1, 1960 Bishan Singh's surplus area case was decided and the land in question was put in the surplus pool. This was done without notice to the purchasers. Some of the land was also banjar jadid and kadim and had been so recorded in the revenue record. So this land deserved to be exempted altogether in terms of the definition of land given under Section 2(8) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Punjab Law) read with Section 4(1) of the Punjab Tenancy Act.
(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY , 26 Kanals 8 Marlas was allotted to Sampuran Singh under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 as a tenant. Land measuring 61 Kanals 18 Marlas, out of the land purchased by the petitioners from Bishan Singh, was allotted to Partapa (father of Sada Ram respondent 4) under the said Rules.;