Dismissed

Girdhari and Ors. v. State of Hry Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jul 2010CWP/2826/1986

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of letters requiring surrender of land declared surplus under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, holding that the matter was covered by a Supreme Court judgment upholding Section 12(3) of the Act and a subsequent Division Bench decision.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; operation of letters requiring surrender of land was upheld.

Girdhari and Ors. Vs State of Hry Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

CWP No.2826 of 1986

¶3

Date of decision: 14.7.2010

¶4

Girdhari and others

¶5

-----Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Haryana and others

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

¶10

Present:Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Ritu Bahri, Sr.DAG,Haryana for the State.

¶11

Adarsh Kumar Goel,J .

¶12

This petition seeks quashing of letters Annexures P.1 and P.2 requiring the petitioners to hand over possession of the land which was declared surplus under the provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short, ‘the 1972 Act’). Prayer has also been made to restrain the respondents from utilizing the said land for settling tenants as per Haryana Utilization of Surplus and other Areas Scheme, 1976.

¶13

Case of the petitioners is that proceedings were taken under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short, ‘the 1953 Act’) and 23 kanals 17 marlas of land was declared surplus in the hands of the predecessor of Surat Singh, father of the petitioners, who died about seven years back prior to the filing of this petition on which the petitioners were entitled to determination of permissible area afresh under the provisions of 1972 Act. The respondents, however, are proceeding to take possession of the land relying upon section 12(3) of the 1972 Act to the

¶14

CWP No.2826 of 1986

¶15

¶16

effect that area declared surplus shall be deemed to have vested in the State. Provision to that effect was unconstitutional as in the hands of the petitioners, land was within permissible area as per 1972 Act.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly states that after filing of the writ petition, judgment was rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Bhagwanti Devi v. State of Haryana and another , AIR 1994 SC 1869 upholding Section 12(3) of the 1972 Act and holding that the proceedings could not be re-opened under the 1972 Act. Following the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a Division Bench of this Court in Gopal Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.1132 of 1987 decided on 16.12.2009, dismissed identical writ petition.

¶18

In view of above, the matter being covered against the petitioners, this petition is dismissed.

¶19

July 14, 2010 ‘gs’

¶20

(Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge

Girdhari and Ors. v. State of Hry Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girdhari and Ors. v. State of Hry Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kirpa Ram & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Yoginder Pal Vs State of Hry. & Ors.

Daljeet Singh and Anr. Vs the Asstt. Collector Ist Grade, Guhla and Ors.

Surjit Singh Vs Punjab State Coop. Supply and Mktg Fed Ltd.

Jagtar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Abnash Chander Purang Vs State of Haryana etc. (Resto)