High Court dismissed writ petition challenging declaration of surplus land. Court held 1966 transfer to third party was malafide to defeat surplus laws and successors could not reopen case as landlord died after appointed date.
Writ petition dismissed; order of Financial Commissioner upheld.
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.17741 OF 2007 :{ 1 }:
I N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 25, 2009
Baldev Singh & others
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
The Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
PRESENT: Mr.Ajay Kumar Kansal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr.Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the respondents.
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioners are aggrieved against the order passed by various authorities regarding the surplus land at the hands of the petitioners. Plea is that these orders are arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice.
The facts in brief are that landlord Devtan transferred 92 kanals 4 marlas of his land to one Deva in 1966. This land was purchased by Smt.Parkasi on 17.10.1966, who is daughter in law of
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17741 OF 2007 :{ 2 }:
petitioner, Ajit Singh son of Devtan. In the year 1972, Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 was legislated and 24.1.1971 was fixed as the appointed day under this Act and transaction after this appointed day was declared invalid for the purpose of evaluating the entire land holding.
Devtan suffered five decrees in favour of his five relatives on 5.5.1972. While considering the case of surplus of landlord Devtan, the Prescribed Authority, Jind, upheld the validity of these five decrees and vide its order dated 14.7.1978 found that no land was surplus with Devtan. Devtan died somewhere in the year 198283 and his property was mutated in favour of his legal heirs. On 17.12.1993, Financial Commissioner, Haryana, declared those five decrees as invalid and accordingly directed that surplus case of the landlord Devtan be redetermined by including the areas transferred by these five decrees. This order was challenged by filing a writ petition which was dismissed by this Court on 6.9.1994. The Prescribed Authority thereafter redetermined the surplus area of the landlord on 13.2.2001. 188 kanals 6 marlas of land was declared surplus, which is urged to be wrong. Grievance is that the transfer of land measuring 92 kanals 4 marlas in the year 1966 has wrongly been taken into consideration, which was owned and possessed by daughter in law of petitioner No.1 but was taken into consideration in the surplus pool. It is also claimed that no redetermination of the surplus land was done, though the succession had opened in the year 1983-84. The petitioners filed an appeal against this order but the same was dismissed on 10.2.2004. The revision filed against this order was also dismissed on 21.9.2006. The petition filed against this
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17741 OF 2007 :{ 3 }:
order was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on 24.8.2007. The finding returned by the Financial Commissioner that transfer made in the year 1966 was malafide like other transactions done in the year 1972 earlier declared invalid. The orders are put to challenge, through the present writ petition.
The counsel for the petitioners submits that prescribed date mentioned in the act is 24.1.1971 and any disposition of the property prior to this date would be perfectly valid as the transactions done after this date are to be ignored. It is accordingly submitted that transfer done in the year 1966 in the name of a third person has wrongly been taken into consideration while calculating the surplus land and hence, the writ petition.
A perusal of the impugned order would show that Devtan had filed a declaration on 16.8.1976 under Haryana Ceiling and Land Holding Act, 1972, with the Prescribed Authority. It was then held on 4.7.1978 that there was no surplus area with the landlord. Against this order, Government had preferred R.O.R. No.248 of 1988-89 before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. It then transpired that Devtan had died 9 years ago and the case could not be maintained against a dead person. The revision was accordingly dismissed on 18.8.1992. Government, however, was held entitled to file another revision petition regarding the disputed land. Government accordingly preferred another R.O.R No.404 of 1991-92 before the Financial Commissioner after impleading legal heirs of Devtan as a party. Financial Commissioner had then declared the sale deeds as invalid vide his order dated 17.12.1993, as noticed above. Writ petition against this order was also dismissed.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17741 OF 2007 :{ 4 }:
The land measuring 922 kanals 6 marlas stood in the name of Devtan, his wife Dharmo, son Ajit and Parkashi, daughter in law. Plea is that the land of Smt.Parkashi should not be included in the total land holdings. It is held that the land of Devtan is to be calculated as per the position as on 24.1.1971. The landlord died after 23.12.1972. Therefore, his legal heirs would not be entitled to any benefit on this count. Financial Commissioner had already ordered to give two units to the landlord and writ petition against the same was dismissed. This order acquired finality.
The plea that the land owned by Smt.Parkashi be not included in the surplus can not be accepted in the background in which this transaction has been conducted. It has rightly been noticed that this transaction was merely an alibi to prolong the proceedings. Devtan had transferred this land by way of gift to one Deva who was not related to him. Subsequently Smt.Parkashi bought this land from Deva and she is from the family of Devtan. It would be strange to notice that Devtan had first gifted this land to a third person and his close relation has then bought the same from third person. Where was the need to gift the land to third person? If it was gifted then where was the need for a close relation of person gifting the land to buy it? It is in fact a gift to grand daughter-in-law. This is nothing but a malafide transfer aimed at defeating the objective of surplus laws. The Financial Commissioner rightly noticed that this is merely a gift to daughter-in-law like other five collusive decrees made by land owners to his close relatives.
The surplus area of the big land owner was required to be determined, considering his status as on 24.1.1971. Devtan died
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17741 OF 2007 :{ 5 }:
after this date. Accordingly, there is no requirement of question of opening the case of surplus at the hands of his successors. The reference made by learned counsel for the petitioners to the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Som Nath, 2005 (4) RCR (Civil) 800, would not be of any avail to him as there is nothing on record to show that the land was not utilised before the land owner died. Similar is the ratio laid down in Naresh Saran and others Vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others , AIR 1991 Punjab and Haryana 15. The counsel for the petitioners did not address any argument in regard to the vires of the provisions which were under challenge.
There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
March 25, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether transfer of land in 1966 to a third party and subsequent purchase by the daughter-in-law to evade surplus land provisions is malafide.
Whether successor heirs are entitled to have the surplus case reopened when the landlord died after the appointed date.
Whether the 1966 transaction is valid given the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others Vs. Som NathDistinguished¶31
State of Haryana and others Vs. Som Nath, 2005 (4) RCR (Civil) 800
Naresh Saran and others Vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and othersExplained¶31
Naresh Saran and others Vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, AIR 1991 Punjab and Haryana 15 · Who else cites this
Baldev Singh & others
The Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others
RANJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
