AMAR SINGH AND ORS.versusAJMER SINGH AND ORS.

A                         AMAR SINGH AND ORS.
                                         v.
                           AJMER SINGH AND ORS.

                                  JULY 11, 1994

B            [KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.)

        Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1971-Section 12(3)-Vesting
  of surplus land in State Government-Surplus area declared under the Punjab
  Security of Land Tenures Act, 195J-Proceedings finalised in 1961162--Held:
C Cannot be reopened-Non-utilisation of surplus land possession continued to
  be with land owne,..-..Held: Would not make any difference.

           Proceedings under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953
    were initiated against 'M', father of the first respondent. He owned 61
    standard acres and 9 units of land. There was a partition decree by the
D   Civil Court partitioning the lands among 'M' and his sons. After taking
    this into account, the Collector declared as surplus 9 acres and 3-3/4 units
    of land owned by 'M'. A review petition filed against the said order was
    dismissed.

          As per s. 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972
E
    the surplus land declared under the Punjab Act vested in the State from
    24.1.1971. Accordingly the first respondent was dispossessed of the land
    and the possession given to the appellant. The first respondent challenged
    the same but was unsuccessful. Later, he moved an application before the
    Sub Divisional Officer for correction or the revenue record. The applica-
F   lion was dismissed on the ground that the decree of the Civil Court
    regarding partition was already taken into consideration by the Collector
    while determining the surplus area under the Punjab Act in the. year
    1961/1962. Thereafter the first respondent filed a writ petition b¥'ore tile
    High Court and a Single Judge allowed the petition and quashed the order
G   of the competent authority. The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed.
    Hence this appeal.

          Allowing the appeal, this Court,

          HELD: 1. The High Court fell into patent error in allowing the Writ
H Petition as the surplus proceedings under the Punjab Security of Land
                                        312
                AMAR SINGH v. AIMER SINGH [KULDIP SINGH.J.].                  313

   Tenures Act, 1953 had been finali•ed way back in 1961/1962 and there is          A
   no provision under the Haryana Ceiling on Holdings Act, 1972 lo reopen
   the surplus determined under the Punjab Act. (315-D-E]

           Jaswant Kaur & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (1977) P.L.J. 230,
   distinguished.
                                                                                    B
         2. Simply because the surplus land declared under the Punjab Act
   was not utilised and ii remained in possession of the first respondent
   would not make any difference so far as the position in law is concerned.
   The language of Section 12(3) oflhe Haryana Acl is unequivocal and clear.
   According lo ii the surplus land declared under the Punjab Act stood             C
   vested in the State. The non-utilisation of surplus land till the date of
   vesting (December 23, 1972) is of no consequence and makes no difference.
                                                                   (315-F·G)
           Smt. Bhagwanti Devi &Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (1994) 1 Scale
   861, relied on.                                                        •
                                                                                    D
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3146 of
   1989.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 3.11.87 of the Punjab &
   Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 391 of 1987.                                    E
           V.C. Mahajan, K.G. Bhagat for S.K. Jain for the Appellants.

           S.K. Bisaria for the Respondents.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                               F
        KULDIP SINGH, J. Marn Ram (deceased), father of Ajmer Singh,
  respondent in the appeal herein, was a big landowner. The Punjab Security
  of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (Punjab Act) came into force· with effect from
  April 15, 1953. On that date Maru Ram owned 61 standard acres 9 units
  of land. It was stated that there was a partition decree by the civil court G
  on the basis of which the holding of Marn Ram was partitioned amongst
• him and his three sons namely Prithi Singh, Surat Singh and Ajmer Singh.
  Proceedings under the Punjab Act were initiated and 9 acres and 3-3/4
  units of land owned and possessed by Marn Ram was declared surplus by
  the Collector, Kamal, on March 10, 1961. The Collector, Karna~ took into H
    314                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A   consideration the partition decree and all other material placed before the
    Collector. Against the order dated March 10, 1961, the three sons of Maru
    Ram filed a review petition which was heard by the Collector, Karna! on
    merits and was dismissed by his order dated. July 26, 1962. It is not disputed
    before us by the learned counsel .appearing for Ajmer Singh-respondent
B   that the orders dated March 10, 1961 and July 26, 1962 have achieved
    finality.

         The Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (Haryana Act)
    came into force with effect from December 23, 1972. The provisions of the
    Punjab Act which were inconsistent with the provisions of the Haryana Act
C   were repealed by Section 33 of the Haryana Act. Section 12(3) of the
    Haryana Ac( which is relevant is reproduced hereunder: -

             "12(3). The area declared surplus or tenant's permissible area
             under the Punjab Law and the area declared surplus under the
D            Pepsu law, which has not so far vested in the State Government,
             shall be deemed to have vested in the State Government with effect
             from the appointed day and the area which may be so declared
             under the Punjab law or the Pepsu law after the appointed day.
             shall be deemed to have vested in the State Government with effect
E            from the date of such declaration.'

         ·It is clear from the language of Section 12(3) of the Haryana Act that
   the surplus land declared under the· Punjab Act stood vested in the State
   with effect from the appointed day (January 24, 1971). 9 acres and 3-3/4
F units of land belonging to late Maru Ram and his sons which was declared
  ·surplus in the year 1961/1962 also stood vested in the State of Haryana in
   terms of Secti<Jn 12(3) of the Haryana Act. The said land having vested in
   the State Government was allotted to the appellant and respondents 3 and
   4 in the year 1981. Ajmer Singh-respondent, was dispossessed from the
   land and the possession was handed over to the appellant. Ajmer Singh-
G respondent, challenged the allotment .made to the appellant by way of a
   revision petition before Collector, Kurukshetra. The Collector by his order
   dated May 26, 1982 dismissed the petition. The Collector came to the •
    conclusion that the surplus proceedings against Marn Ram and his sons
    having achieved finality in the year 1961/1962 under the Punjab Act, the
H same could not be reopened. Ajmer Singh moved another application
           AMAR SINGH v. AIMER SINGH (KULDIP SINGH, J.]                 315

before the Sub Divisional Officer, Thanesar for the correction of the          A
revenue record. The said application was made on the basis of the partition
decree of the civil court dated June 16, 1958. The Sub Divisional Officer
dismissed the application on the ground that the decree of the civil court
was taken into consideration by the Collector, Kamal while determining
the surplus area under the Punjab Act in the year 1961/1962. Thereafter,       B
Ajmer Singh filed writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
A learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and
quashed the order of the competent authority allotting the land to the
appellant. The High Court relied upon the full Bench judgment of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court inlaswant Kaur&Anr. v. State of Haryana          C
& Anr., (1977) P.L.J. 230.

       We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The High Court fell
into patent error in allowing the writ petition on the basis of the ratio in
Jaswant Kaur's case (supra). The said case is not even remotely relevant to
the facts of the present case. The learned Judge failed to appreciate that     D
in the present case the surplus proceedings under the Punjab Act had been
finalised as back as 1961/1962. There is no provision under the Haryana
Act to reopen the surplus determined ·under the Punjab Act. Based on
wholly erroneous assumptions the learned Judge allowed the writ petition.
The Letters Patent Bench of the High Court mechanically dismissed the          E
appeal in limine.

       Learned counsel for Ajmar Singh- respondent, has ccintended that
although the surplus proceedings against Marn Ram was finalised in the
year 1961/1962 but the possession of the surplus land remained with Ajmar
Singh, respondent, till 1981 when the same was handed over to the appel-
                                                                             F
lant. Simply because the surplus land declared under the Punjab Act was
not utilised and it remained in possession of Ajmer Singh-respondent
would not make any .difference so far as the position in law is concerned.
The language of Section 12(3) is unequivocal and clear. According to it the
surplus land declared under the Punjab Act stood vested in the State. The G
non-utilisation of surplus land till the date of vesting (December 23, 1972)
is of no consequence and makes no difference. The view we have taken is
supported by the judgment of this Court in Smt. Bhagwanti Devi & Anr. v..
State of Haryana & Anr., (1994) 1 Scale 861. We, therefore, allow the
appeal, set asi~e the impugned judgment of learned single. Judge of the
    316                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A   High Court dated September 23, 1987 and also the order of the Letters
    Patent Bench dated November 3, 1987. Civil Writ Petition No. 163 of 1986
    filed by Ajmer Singh in the High Court stand dismissed. The appellant shall
    be entitled to his cost which we quantify as Rs.11,000. Costs to bl' paid by
    respondent-Ajmer Singh.

    G.N.                                                       Appeal allowed.