Dismissed¶15

Surja Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Jan 2026CWP/3428/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (Sections 10, 11); surplus area; permissible area; big landowners; appointed date; subsequent/bona fide purchaser not protected; sale deed dated 18.07.1989; Rs.1,87,000/- consideration; Mutation No.2673; Mutation No.2703; 89 Kanal-19 Marla; 137 Kanal-17 Marla; Village Bajekan, Tehsil and District Sirsa; Special Collector; Divisional Commissioner, Hisar; Financial Commissioner, Haryana; ROR No.12 of 1992-93; Annexures P-1, P-3, P-7, P-10; writ petition (O&M) dismissed; remedy against vendor.

What did the court decide?

Since the sale in favour of the petitioners was effected after the appointed date under the 1972 Act, and in respect of area already declared surplus, it is not protected under the provisions of the 1972 Act. ¶12

Surja Ram & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the land purchased by the petitioners from respondent No.4 (including 89 Kanal-19 Marla treated as surplus) should be taken out of the surplus pool and counted towards the permissible area of respondents No.3 to 5. +2 more

¶1

Court's answer

In the attending circumstances, the grievance, if any, of the petitioners would lie only against their vendor, respondent No.4.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

¶12

Key takeaways

The Divisional Commissioner's finding allowing the petitioners' appeal for want of notice prior to the order dated 30.06.1988 was clearly untenable, as the surplus area had been determined on 30.06.1988, before the petitioners entered the picture.ratio¶11
The learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana rightly appreciated the facts and law in its well-reasoned order dated 03.01.1997 (Annexure P-10), which did not warrant any interference by this Court in the writ proceedings.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court, Chandigarh (writ petition, O&M) — Dismissed. Petitioners, who purchased 137 Kanal-17 Marla from respondent No.4 vide registered sale deed dated 18.07.1989 for Rs.1,87,000/- (including 89 Kanal-19 Marla already declared surplus), challenged the Financial Commissioner, Haryana's revisional order dated 03.01.1997 (Annexure P-10) restoring the Special Collector's selection of permissible area and surplus pool. Held: (i) the surplus area of respondents No.3 to 5 stood determined on 30.06.1988 and their permissible area/surplus pool were finalized on 07.09.1988; (ii) a sale effected after the appointed date under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, in respect of land already declared surplus, is not protected under that Act; (iii) the Divisional Commissioner, Hisar's order dated 25.07.1992 allowing the petitioners' appeal for want of notice was clearly untenable; (iv) the Financial Commissioner's order suffered from no fault; and (v) the petitioners' grievance, if any, lies only against their vendor, respondent No.4.

¶1

APURVA

¶2

2026.04.29 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶3

(O&M)

¶4

bearing Killa Nos.177//10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 18, 21 min, 20, 23 and Killa Nos.14//2/2 and 3, which was bona fidely purchased by the petitioners from respondent No.4 with the consent of respondents No.3 and 5, for valuable consideration; in the ‘permissible area’ of respondents No.3 to 5, by taking this area out of the surplus pool, and further to take that much area from the ‘permissible area’ of the respondents No.3 to 5 and include the same in the ‘surplus pool’.

¶5

Briefly, respondent No.3 – Divakar Singh and respondent No.4 – Virender Singh are the sons of respondent No.5 – Jagjeet Singh @ Jangjeet Singh.

¶6

2.1 It appears that respondent No.5 along with his sons, i.e. respondents No.3 and 4; were big land owners. The State of Haryana initiated proceedings against them for determination of their surplus area in Village Bajekan, Tehsil and District Sirsa, under Section 11 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (in short ‘the 1972 Act’). The then Special Collector, Haryana (while exercising his powers under the 1972 Act), vide order dated 11.07.1986, declared 1523 Kanal-1 Marla of ‘C’ category land as surplus in the hands of respondents No.3 to 5.

¶7

2.2 Being aggrieved, respondent No.5 challenged the aforesaid order dated 11.07.1986 by filing an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Hisar, which came to be allowed vide order dated 17.09.1987, whereby the matter was remanded to the learned Special Collector, for re-deciding the case.

¶8

2.3 Upon remand, the learned Special Collector, vide order dated 30.06.1988, again adjudicated the surplus area case of respondents No.3

¶9

APURVA 2026.04.29 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶10

(O&M)

¶11

to 5. It transpires that since respondent No.5 failed to furnish the requisite particulars of the land which he intended to surrender towards the surplus pool, the learned Special Collector, vide order dated 18.07.1988, proceeded to declare the ‘surplus area’ as well as the ‘permissible area’ of the big landowners at his own level in terms of Section 10 of the 1972 Act.

¶12

2.4 Subsequently, respondent No.5 moved an application before the learned Special Collector seeking recall of the aforesaid order dated 18.07.1988, which was allowed vide order dated 07.09.1988 (Annexure P-1), with a direction to respondent No.5 to furnish the details of the land proposed to be surrendered in the ‘surplus pool’.

¶13

2.5 It is the case of the petitioners that no mutation with respect to the surplus area of respondents No.3 to 5 had been entered or reflected in the revenue records in favour of the State Government till 06.01.1990. It is averred that after undertaking necessary verification of the revenue records and making inquiries from the concerned revenue officials, and also on the basis of assurances given by respondent No.4 that he was the owner of the land measuring 137 Kanal-17 Marla (free from all encumbrances) and competent to transfer the same, with no legal prohibition attached thereto; the petitioners, acting bona fidely and for valuable consideration of Rs.1,87,000/-, purchased the aforesaid land measuring 137 Kanal-17 Marla vide registered Sale Deed dated 18.07.1989 (Annexure P-3). Upon execution of the said Sale Deed, Mutation No.2673 dated 03.08.1989 was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners.

¶14

2.6 According to the petitioners, on 06.01.1990, Mutation No.2703 came to be entered by the Halqa Patwari in favour of the State of Haryana

¶15

APURVA 2026.04.29 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶16

(O&M)

¶17

in respect of 89 Kanal-19 Marla (out of the total land measuring 137 Kanal17 Marla purchased by the petitioners from respondent No.4), on the premise that the said land had been declared surplus vide order dated 07.09.1988 (Annexure P-1).

¶18

2.7 It transpires that upon learning about the aforesaid Mutation No.2703, whereby land measuring 89 Kanal-19 Marla was included in the surplus pool, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Hisar. The said appeal was allowed vide order dated 25.07.1992 (Annexure P-7), whereby the order dated 07.09.1988 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Special Collector was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh determination. The learned Divisional Commissioner further directed that the permissible area as well as surplus area of respondents No.3 to 5 be re-determined by including the land purchased by the petitioners within the permissible area of big land owners and by correspondingly including an equivalent area in the surplus pool.

¶19

2.8 Being aggrieved, respondents No.3 to 5 filed a revision petition (ROR No.12 of 1992-93) before the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana, which was allowed vide order dated 03.01.1997 (Annexure P-10), whereby the order dated 25.07.1992 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Hisar, was set aside.

¶20

¶21

APURVA 2026.04.29 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶22

(O&M)

¶23

The aforesaid facts are not in dispute before this Court.

¶24

Concededly, the surplus area with respect to the land holdings of respondents No.3 to 5 was determined by the learned Special Collector vide order dated 30.06.1988. Thereafter, the selection of the permissible area by respondent No.5, as well as the land to be placed in the surplus pool, was finalized by the learned Special Collector vide order dated 07.09.1988 (Annexure P-1).

¶25

It is evident that respondent No.4 sold land measuring 137 Kanal-17 Marla to the petitioners vide registered Sale Deed dated 18.07.1989 (Annexure P-3), which included 89 Kanal-19 Marla already declared as ‘surplus’ by respondent No.5. Being a big landowner, respondent No.5 was fully aware of the land which he had selected for the surplus pool; even then, the said land was sold to the petitioners.

¶26

Be that as it may, the petitioners challenged the order dated 07.09.1988 (Annexure P-1), whereby respondents No.3 to 5 had selected their permissible area and further identified the land to be placed in the surplus pool; by filing an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Hisar. The said appeal was allowed vide order dated 25.07.1992 (Annexure P-7), and the matter was remanded to the learned Special Collector for fresh determination.

¶27

However, on a revision petition preferred by respondents No.3 to 5, the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana, vide order (Annexure P-11), set aside the order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner (Annexure P-7), while observing as under:-

¶28

APURVA 2026.04.29 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶29

(O&M)

¶30

APURVA 2026.04.29 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶31

(O&M)

¶32

APURVA 2026.04.29 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶33

(O&M)

¶34

APURVA 2026.04.29 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶35

(O&M)

¶36

considering the findings recorded by the learned Financial Commissioner, I am of the view that in the attending facts and circumstances, no fault can be found therein.

¶37

Evidently, the surplus area in the hands of respondents No.3 to 5 stood determined as far back as on 30.06.1988, whereas the petitioners purchased the land subsequently vide Sale Deed dated 18.07.1989 (Annexure P-3). Thus, on the date when the surplus area was declared, the petitioners were not in the picture. The learned Divisional Commissioner, Hisar, had allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners primarily on the ground that no notice had been issued to them prior to the order dated 30.06.1988; however, in the given circumstances, such a finding was clearly untenable.

¶38

Moreover, since the sale in favour of the petitioners was effected after the appointed date under the 1972 Act, and that too in respect of the area which was already declared surplus; the same is not protected under the provisions of the 1972 Act.

¶39

In the attending circumstances, the grievance, if any, of the petitioners, would lie only against their vendor, i.e. respondent No.4.

¶40

Keeping in view the above, this Court finds that the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana, has rightly appreciated the facts and law while passing the well reasoned order dated 03.01.1997 (Annexure P-10), which does not warrant any interference by this Court in the present

¶41

APURVA 2026.04.29 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶42

(O&M)

¶43

writ proceedings.

¶44

Resultantly, the present writ petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶45

APURVA 2026.04.29 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Revisional order dated 03.01.1997 (Annexure P-10) in ROR No.12 of 1992-93, allowing the revision of respondents No.3 to 5 and setting aside the Divisional Commissioner, Hisar's order dated 25.07.1992 (Annexure P-7); challenged in this writ petition and ultimately upheld.¶2.8
Financial Commissioner, Haryana · 03.01.1997
Prior proceeding
Special Collector, Haryana, in proceedings under Section 11 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, declared 1523 Kanal-1 Marla of 'C' category land surplus in the hands of respondents No.3 to 5.¶2.1
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.5's appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Hisar allowed; matter remanded to the Special Collector for re-decision.¶2.2
Prior proceeding
Upon remand, the Special Collector again adjudicated the surplus area case of respondents No.3 to 5.¶6
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.5 having failed to furnish particulars of land to be surrendered, the Special Collector declared the 'surplus area' and 'permissible area' of the big landowners at his own level under Section 10 of the 1972 Act.¶2.3
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.5's recall application allowed vide order dated 07.09.1988 (Annexure P-1) with direction to furnish details of land proposed for the surplus pool; selection of permissible area and surplus pool finalized by this order.¶2.4
Prior proceeding
Registered Sale Deed dated 18.07.1989 (Annexure P-3): respondent No.4 sold 137 Kanal-17 Marla to the petitioners for Rs.1,87,000/-; Mutation No.2673 dated 03.08.1989 sanctioned in favour of the petitioners.¶2.5
Prior proceeding
On 06.01.1990, Mutation No.2703 entered by the Halqa Patwari in favour of the State of Haryana in respect of 89 Kanal-19 Marla out of the petitioners' purchased land, on the premise that it had been declared surplus vide order dated 07.09.1988.¶2.6
Prior proceeding
Petitioners' appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Hisar allowed vide order dated 25.07.1992 (Annexure P-7); order dated 07.09.1988 set aside and matter remanded for fresh determination, with direction to count the petitioners' purchase within the permissible area and add equivalent area to the surplus pool.¶2.7

Surja Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surja Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Usman Khan and Another Vs F.C. Haryana and Others

Subhash Chander etc. Vs F.C. (a-I) Pb.Chd.Etc.

Sarabjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Haji Noor Mohammad Vs State of Haryana

Bahadur Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Others