Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2133 of 1984
PETITIONER:
SURINDER NATH DEWAN
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/01/1994
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY & N. VENKATACHALA
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
1994(1) SCR 186
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 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 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 Authorities
appear to have issued directions to restore the leased land to the
appellant. However, a simultaneous proceeding appears to have been taken to
assign the earlier declared surplus land to landless 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.
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 was declared as holder of 15 standard acres of surplus land by
the order passed by the Collector on December 12, 1960. Having allowed 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. By operation of section 12(3) of the Haryana Act, the surplus land
stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances on and with effect
from December 23, 1972. Jaswant Kaur v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. (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 in
the State absolutely effective 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.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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 modifying the determination of the surplus area in
accordance with the provisions of 1953 Act. The appeal is, therefore,
dismissed but without costs.