Petitioner challenged an order releasing surplus land from the surplus pool under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, while claiming an unexecuted land allotment. The court dismissed the writ petition for lack of merit, noting the petitioner had not deposited instalments for two years post-allotment and lacked locus standi.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Writ Petition No.13268 of 2007 : 1 :
I N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 13, 2009
Om Parkash
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
PRESENT: Mr.Swarn Sandhir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ or direction for quashing the order passed by Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and Collector, Rohtak releasing the land of the respondents from the surplus pool.
Land measuring 72 kanals 14 marlas of Diwan Singh was declared surplus on 1.7.1960. As per the petitioner, this land, thus, came to vest in the State of Haryana. In the year 1972, The Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short “The Ceiling
Civil Writ Petition No.13268 of 2007 : 2 :
Act”) came into force. In the year 1976, Utilisation of surplus and other areas scheme was also framed. On 3.11.1977, the petitioner was allotted land out of this surplus pool along with some other tenants. His grievance is that no communication was issued to him.
On the basis of a declaration filed by Diwan Singh, an order was passed excluding the area declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953. Accordingly, it was held that there was no surplus with Diwan Singh. On 24.8.1992, Diwan Singh and respondent Nos.3 to 5 filed an application under Sections 4,8 and 12 of the Ceiling Act for release of their land declared on 1.7.1960. This application, however, was dismissed on 18.5.1993. On 5.4.1994, Diwan Singh died, when respondent Nos.3 to 5, his heirs, filed another application under the said sections of the Ceiling Act for release of the land on the ground that now benefit of separate units be given to the said respondents. The petitioner though was not impleaded but joined the proceedings in the year 1996. Prescribed Authority vide his order dated 19.1.1996 released the entire land of Diwan Singh from the surplus pool. The State did not file any appeal against this order. The petitioner, however, appealed against the same, which was dismissed on 17.11.1998. The revision against this order was filed on 12.4.1999, which was dismissed on 14.6.2002 on the ground of limitation. The petitioner thereafter requested the authority on 15.12.2006 to allot some alternative land as the earlier land could not be allotted to him. He has now filed this writ petition praying for quashing of the order as noticed.
The petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority holding that no land with respondent Nos.3
Civil Writ Petition No.13268 of 2007 : 3 :
to 5 has remained surplus as it had not been utilised till the big landowner Diwan Singh died. Against this order dated 19.1.1996, the petitioner filed an appeal on 17.11.1998. Despite grant of 20 opportunities, the petitioner could not provide the correct address of the respondents and they could not be served. Accordingly, the appellant was heard and the appeal was decided. Conceded position is that the petitioner was allotted this land on 3.11.1977, but he did not deposit any instalment for 20 years, when this matter came up before the Prescribed Authority. Due to non-deposit of the instalments within three years, the allotment of the land stood automatically cancelled. It was accordingly found that he would not have any right over the land and his appeal was dismissed. Against this order, he filed a revision when it was found that his revision was hopelessly time barred and no application for condonation of delay was also filed by the petitioner. The order of Collector was passed on 17.11.1998, which was ready for delivery on 30.12.1998 and the petitioner obtained the copy thereof on 6.1.1999. Still, he filed this revision on 12.4.1999. Even it was argued that the petitioner would not have any locus to file this petition as he was neither in possession nor had deposited any instalment for the allotment of land made in his favour. Accordingly, it was a matter between the State and the land owner, whereas State has not impugned the order passed by the Prescribed Authority either by filing an appeal or revision. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.
It is perhaps on account of insurmountable difficulties that the petitioner has also made a prayer for allotment of an alternative land. The only thing which the counsel for the petitioner could say
Civil Writ Petition No.13268 of 2007 : 4 :
was that petitioner was never made aware of this allotment and hence could not have deposited the instalments. Even if it be so, it would clearly reveal that the land declared surplus was never utilised as per the conceded stand of the petitioner. Neither the possession of the land was handed over nor any instalment was deposited. Thus,
no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.
There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
February 13, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the order releasing land from the surplus pool and claiming allotment of alternative land has merit.
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to file the petition having neither been in possession nor deposited instalments.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Om Parkash
State of Haryana
RANJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
