Holding

The surplus land vested in the State free of all encumbrances from 23 December 1972, and the Haryana Act’s retrospective provisions are constitutionally valid, precluding any recomputation of the land.

Summary

Sampuran Singh's land was declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 in 1964, but he continued to possess and enjoy it. After his three sons became majors, he sought to reopen the declaration and recompute the surplus land under sections 7 and 9 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the surplus land vested in the State on 23 December 1972 under section 12(3) of the Haryana Act and could not be recomputed. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating that mere enjoyment of the surplus land did not confer any title, and that the Haryana Act’s retrospective operation, which vested the land in the State, was constitutionally valid. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether surplus land, although allowed to remain in possession of the former holder, vested in the State under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, precluding recomputation.
Whether sections 7 and 9 of the Haryana Act permit reopening of a surplus land declaration made under the Punjab Act.
Whether the retrospective operation of the Haryana Act, which takes away vested rights, is constitutionally valid.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India
Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972s. 12(3), s. 33(2), s. 7, s. 9
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953s. 2(5-a)

Subjects

land ceilingsurplus landretrospective legislationvested rightsstate vestingland reformPunjab Security of Land Tenures ActHaryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act

Judgment

-/
'~

~
A SAMPURAN SINGH
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JANUARY 19, 1994

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

~-
The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953/The Haryana Ceiling
on Land Holdings Act, 1922:

c S. 2(5-a)/ss.7,9,12(3), 33(2}-Surplus area-Remained in enjoyment of
land holder--ln interregnum sons of land holder became majors-
Landholder's claim for reopening of declaratiort-Held, though surplus land
was allowed to remain in possession of land holder, title vested in the State
free from all encumbrances from 23.12.1972---Pending proceedings under
Punjab Act should be completed under that Act. •-f--
D
Constitution of India, 1950 : Competence of State Legislature-Power
to enact laws with retrospective Operatiort-Held, Legislature is competent to
enact law with retrospective effect even taking away vested rights in some cases
by allowing retrospective operation of law-Haryana Ceiling on Lands Hold-
E ings Act, 1972 is constitutionally valid.

Certain lands of the appellant were, in 1964, declared as surplus
under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The appellant's
claim that the land, though declared surplus, having been allowed to be in
his possession and enjoyment, that is, to remain otherwise unutilised, he
F was entitled to seek the reopening of his declaration under ss.7 and 9 of
Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 as in the interregnum his
three sons had become majors, was rejected by the High Court. Hence, the
appeal by special leave.
~

Dismissing the appeal, this Court
G
HELD : 1.1. Though- the surplus land was allowed to remain in >--
possessioq_ of the previous landholder, the title stood vested under s.12(3)
of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 in the State free from
all encumbrances on and from December 23, 1972. Further the mere
H enjoyment of surplus land allowed by the State to the previous landholder
176
SAMPURANSINGH v.STATEOFHARYANA 177

does not create any right in him to claim any title in such land. Therefore, A
fresh computation among the appellant and his three sons, who later
became majors, cannot be done. [179·A·B]

1.2. Section 9 of the Haryana.Act does not permit the surplus area
declared under the Punjab Act to be adjusted by reopening and rec:om·
putation. Neither the Haryana Act nor the Punjab Act contain any such B
provision. On the other hand the provisi_on in S.33(2)(ii) of the Haryana
Act that pending proceedings under the Punjab Act should be completed
under that Act and the surplus land would vest in the State is a clear
indication to the contrary. (178-E]

Jodha Ram (dead) by L.Rs. v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana,
c
Chandigarh & Ors., (1994) 1 S.C.C. 27, relied on.

Jaswant Kaur v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. (1977) P & H 221, approved.

2.1. Legislatur-e is competent to enact law with retrospective effect D
even taking away Vt!sted rights in some cases by allowing retrospective
operation of the law. (179-D]

2.2. In the instant case, by statutory vesting of the surplus land, the
pre-existing right, title and interest in the land of its holder stood vested in
the State on and from December 23, 1972. This Court bas upheld Constitu- E
tional validity of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. (179-D]

*Mukhtiar Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (1985) 1 SCALE
21, relied on•

. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3397 of F
1984 etc.. etc. .

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.1981 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No.5298 of 1981.

AM. Singhvi, G.IK. Bansal, S.M. Ashri, KK Mohan, Rajiv Dutta, G
_......,, Vipin Nair, Mahabir Singh, J.D. Jain, Ms. Shirin Jain, Ms. V. Mohana and
Ms. Indu Malhotra for the appearing parties.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

1. This appeal arises from the order of the Division Bench of the H
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) lS.C.R.

A Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, dated November 23, 1981
made in C.W.P. No. 5298/81. Admittedly by proceedings dated August 28,
1964 the appellant was declared to have surplus land of 117 bighas, 5
biswas of barani land as on April 15, 1964. Thereafter he remained in
possession and enjoyment of the surplus land. In the W.P. the appellant
claimed that in the interregnum his three sons had become majors and that
B therefore the surplus area should be recomputed under the Haryana
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, l972. The High Court dismissed the Writ
Petition. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

2. Slui Bansal, learned counsel for the appellant raised two-fold
C contentions. Firstly he contended that since the land, though declared
surplus, having been allowed to be in possession and enjoyment of the
appellant, that is, to remain otherwise unutilised, the appellant was entitled
to seek the reopening of his declaration in which his sons had since become
majors. Under ss.7. and 9 of the Haryana Act, computation of surplusland
D had to be done among himself and his three sons. We find no force in this
contention. The Punjab Act while fixes 31 standard acres as ceiling area,
the Haryana Act fixes 17-1/2 shtandard acres as ceiling area and permits
under s.9, the determination of surplus land. If there was a major s~n living
separately, his .unit could be computed separately as his share. In that
process, the surplus land is liable to adjustment under s.9 of Haryana Act.
E That does not, however, permit the surplus area declared under Punjab
Act to be adjusted by reopening and recomputation. Neither the Haryana
Act nor. the Punjab Act contain any such provision. On the other hand the
provision in S.33(2)(ii) that pending proceedings under Punjab Act should
be completed under 1953 Act and the surplus land would vest in the State
F is a clear indication to the contrary. A full bench of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in Jaswant Kaur v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 1977 P & H 221;
interpreting s.12(3) of Haryana Act held that the surplus lands on and from
December 23, 1972 shall stand vested under Section 12(3) of the Haryana
Act in the State. In other wor~s, from that date the lands stand vested in
G the State of Haryana free from all encumbrances, becoming available under
the H aryana Act for allotment of surplus land to the tenants and the
landless labourers for cultivation. This Court also considered the effect of )-
. that judgment in Jodha Ram (dead) by L.Rs. v. Financial Commissioner,
Haryana, Chandigarh & Ors., [1994) 1 S.C.C. 27, and held that by operation
of Section 8 read with s.12 and also of the Punjab Act, any alienation made
H prior to July 13, 1958 alone was saved and the lands remaining undisposed
SAMPURAN SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 179

of, till the date of vesting would-continue to vest in the State and the surplus A
landholder" does not have any right, title or interest in the land and he
cannot even seek eviction of any tenant inducted by the State into that land.
In view of these decision, we have no hesitation to conclude that though
the surplus land was allowed to remam in possession o{ the previous
landholder, the title stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances B
on and from December 23, 1972. Further the mere enjoyment of surplus
land allowed by the State to the previous landholder does not create any
right in him to claim any title in such land. Therefore, the question of fresh
computation among the appellant and his three sons, who later became
majors, does not arise.

3. It is next contended that the Act has been given retrospective
c
effect and it effects the vested right of the appellant and that therefore it
is ultravired. We find no force in the contention. It is now well settled that
legislature is competent to enact law with retrospective effect even talcing
away vested rights in some cases by allowing retrospective operation of the
~ -+ law. In this case such question does not arise for the reason that by D
statutory vesting of the surplus land; the pre-existing right, title and interest
in the land of its holder stood vested in the State on and from December
23, 1972. When the constitutional validity of the provisions in the Act was
challenged, this Court by a Bench of three Judges in W.P. Nos.16018-21/84
and other cases entitled Mukhtiar Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., E
by judgment dated November 21, 1984 upheld their validity, Under these
circumstances, we do not find any ground warranting interference with the
order under challenge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but in the
circumstances without costs.

R.P. Appeal dismissed.