Holding

By operation of Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, the surplus land vested in the State, divesting the appellant of title, so no notice or restoration was required.

Summary

Surinder Nath Dewan was declared a holder of 15 standard acres of surplus land by a 1960 order under the East Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. He later obtained a determination that only 5 acres were surplus and sought restoration of land that had been leased out under the East Punjab Area Utilisation of Lands Act. Simultaneously, the State of Haryana, invoking the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, assigned the surplus land to landless poor. Dewan challenged the assignment, arguing that he was not served a show‑cause notice. The Supreme Court held that Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act vested the surplus land in the State from 23 December 1972, thereby divesting Dewan of any title and rendering the issue of notice or restoration moot. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, vests surplus land in the State, extinguishing the declarant's title.
Whether a show‑cause notice is required to be issued to the declarant before the State assigns surplus land to landless persons.

Legislation cited

Subjects

land ceilingsurplus landvestingshow-cause noticestate acquisitionproperty rightsland reform

Judgment

A SURINDER NATH DEWAN
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JANUARY 19, 1994

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

Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972: Section 12(3). Decl4-
ration of surplus land-Assigning of such land to landless pool'-lssue of >- _
show-cause notice to Declarant of surplus land-Whether necessary.
c The appellant was declared to have 15 standards acres as surplus
land by an order of the Collector dated December 12, 1960 made under the
East Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. That order became final.
Earlier, in the year 1956 under the East Punjab Area Utilisation of Lands
Act, 1949, possession of certain land now declared as surplus, was taken
·D by the Collector and leased out to a tenant. However, during consolidation
proceedings, the appellant obtained an order from the authorities that he
had only 5 standard acres of surplus land. Subsequently, he sought for
restoration of land leased as being surplus land and the authorities issued
directions to restore the leased land to the appellant. But simultaneou~
proceeding were taken to assign the earlier declared surplus land to the
'
E landless poor. . The appellant unsuccessfully questioned before the High
Court the action of the respondent in assigning such land to the landless
poor.

In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the.appellant
that since the appellant was declared as surplus holder only of 5 standard
F
acres of land; the respondents could not assign the lands in excess of 5
standard acres without show cause notice to the appellant.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

G HELD : By opeTation of Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, 1972, the surplus land stood vested in the.State free
from all encumberances on and with effect from December 23, 1972. From
that date then pre-existing right, title and interest in 15 standard acres )--._
including that in 5 standard acres of land stood vested in the state and
the appellant stood divested of the title to the land. Therefore, the question
H of restoring S acres of land to the appellant or giving notice to the
186
S.N.DEWAN v.STATEOFIL.\RYANA 187

appellant, does not arise. (188-B, C] A
- __,,>.-..
Jaswant Kaur v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. (1977) P & H 221 and Jodha
Ram v. P.C. Haryana, [1994] 1S.C.C.27, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2133 of
1984. B
From the Judgment and Order da~ed 23.11.1981 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No.5298of1981.

A.M. Singhvi, G.K. Bansal, S.M. Ashri, K.K. Mohan, Rajiv Dutta,
Vipin Nair, Mahabir Singh, J.D. Jain, Ms. Shirin Jain, Ms. V. Mahana and C
Ms. Indu Malhotra for the appearing parties.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

1. The appellant was declared to have 15 standard acres as surplus
land by an order of the Collector dated December 12, 1960 made under · D
the provisions of the East Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953,
which had come into force on April 15, 1953. That order became final.
Earlier, in the year 1956 under the East Punjab Area Utilisation of Lands
Act, 1949, the possession of 41 kanals 19 marlas which is now declared as
surplus, was taken by the Collector and leased out to a tenant. It appears
that during consolidation proceedings, the appellant had manoeuvred to E
obtain a decision from the authorities that he had only 6 standard acres of
surplus land. Subsequently, in the year 1979, the appellant sought for
restoration of land leased as being surplus land. In pursuance thereof, the
Authroities appear to have issued directions to restore the leased land to
the appellant. However, a simultaneous proceeding appears to have been F
taken to assign the earlier declared surplus land to lapdless poor. The
appellant questioned the action of the respondent in assigning such surplus
land to the landless poor on the ground that he was not given even show
cause notice, by filing a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed
by order dated 3.1.1994. The present appeal by special leave is directed
against that order. G
2. Shri K.K. Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously
contended that the appellant while is declared as surplus holder only of 5
standard acres of land, the respondents could not assign the lands in excess
of 5 standard acres that too without issue of show cause notice to the
appellant. We find no force in the contention. Admittedly, the appellant H
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 1 S.C.R.

A was declared as holder of 15 standard acres of surplus land by the order
passed by the Col1ector on December 12, 1960. Having a11owed that order
to become final, the only course open to him was to have carried it in
appeal or to have it reopened under that Act or under the Haryana Ceiling
on Land Holding Act, 1972, provided the law permitted reopening of the
proceedings and recomputation of the surplus holdings. That was not done.
B By operation of section 12(3) of the Haryana Act, the surplus land stood
vested in the State free from al1 encumbrances on and with effect from
December 23, 1972. Jaswant Kaur v. State of Haryana, A.LR. (1977) P & ·
H 221, a Full Bench Judgment which was approved by this Court in Jodha
Ram v. F.C. Haryana, [1994] 1 S.C.C. 27, holds that the lands stood vested
C in the State absolutely effectiv~ from December 23, 1972. From that date
then pre-existing right, title and interest in 15 standard acres including that
in 5 standard acres of land stood vested in the State and the appellant stood
divested of the title to the land. Therefore, the question of restoring 5 acres
of land to the appellant or giving notice to the appellant, does not arise.

D 3. It may not be construed that the other excess land which stood
vested in the Government by operation of section 12(3) read with the order
dated December 12, 1960 would impede any right, if the appellant had got
by any subsequent orders modifing the determination of the surplus area
in accordance with the provisions of 1953 Act. The appeal is, therefore,
dismissed but without costs.
E
T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.