This court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order declaring land surplus and sanctioning mutation to the State. The court held that land declared surplus under old laws vested in the State upon the 1972 Act's enactment, and petitioners' long delay barred relief.
PRAYER: Proceedings disposed of by dismissal.
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.
1
Civil Writ Petition No.9925 of 1988
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.9925 of 1988 Date of decision: 24.01.2011
Om Bishan & Ors.
....petitioners
Versus
The State of Haryana & anr.
.....respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUAMR GARG
Present: Mr.Roopak Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Addl.Advocate General, Haryana
Mr.Arun Singal, Advocate for respondent No.2
JASBIR SINGH, J.(ORAL):
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash an order dated 04.01.1960(Annexure P-1), declaring land to the extent of 3 Std.Acre 3 ¼ Unit as surplus with petitioner No.4, who is predecessor-ininterest of petitioners No.1 to 3. It is not stated in this writ petition as to whether that order was challenged before the competent Forum by the big land owner or not. Whereas, in the written statement, it is stated that the order mentioned above was challenged before the Commissioner by petitioner No.4 and his appeal was dismissed, as such, the order has
2
Civil Writ Petition No.9925 of 1988
become final. In this writ petition, further challenge has been laid to an order sanctioning mutation on 29.11.1985 in favour of the State of Haryana, of the land declared surplus. This writ petition has been filed, besides impugning the above said orders, to lay challenge to the vires of Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972(in short”the 1972 Act”).
So far as the challenge to the provisions of the aforesaid orders are concerned, counsel for the parties are agreed that the same was upheld by this Court and at the time of hearing no objection was raised in that regard.
Petitioner No.4 died in the year 1988 as per record his name was deleted from the array of parties. Petitioners No.1 to 3 who are sons of respondent No.4 are claiming to retain the land which was declared surplus in the year 1960 by stating that respondent No.4 suffered a decree on 06.04.1970 which has become final and land was not surplus with him. It is further stated that the land was not utilized and it remained in their possession till the inception of the 1972 Act.
It is not in dispute that the land was declared surplus with petitioner No.4 in the year 1960 and that order has become final. Thereafter, if with regard to that land, the petitioner No. 1 to 3 have secured a collusive decree from their father probably by that act, the surplus area order will not become redundant. The big land owner died only in the year 1988. The provisions of 1972 Act came into operation on 24.01.1971. The above said provisions clearly provide that any area declared surplus under the old laws, on coming into existence of the 1972 Act shall vest in the State free from any incumbrance. Even after coming into existence of the 1972 Act, the petitioners remained mum and this writ petition was filed only in the year 1988. On account of delay also they are not entitled to get any relief.
Civil Writ Petition No.9925 of 1988
3
Dismissed.
(JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
24.01.2011 neenu
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to retain land declared surplus under the old law after the enactment of the 1972 Act.
Whether the petitioners' delay in filing the writ petition precludes them from obtaining relief.
Whether the state's mutation of declared surplus land was valid under the 1972 Act provisions.
Om Bishan & Ors.
The State of Haryana & anr.
Jasbir Singh
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
