Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M.Punchhi, J.
Kariar Kaur
Versus
State Of Haryana
Civil Writ Petition No. 2074 of 1977,
Decided On : DECEMBER 15, 1984
SURPLUS AREA PROCEEDINGS - PUNJAB SECURITY OF LAND TENURES ACT, 1953 - HARYANA CEILING ON LAND HOLDINGS ACT, 1972 - S.33(2)(ii) - INTERPRETATION - PENDING PROCEEDINGS - MEANING - RIGHT OF APPEAL - VESTED RIGHT - LIMITATION - CONDONATION OF DELAY - JURISDICTION OF APPELLATE COURT - FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER'S POWER OF REVISION - S.24 - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Smt. Kartar Kaur, is the daughter and transferee of Machhi Singh, a displaced person from West Pakistan who was allotted land in Sirsa, Haryana. In 1960, surplus area proceedings were initiated against Machhi Singh under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and 2.62 standard acres (8.37 ordinary acres) were deducted from his holding. The Collector declared the remaining area as surplus and left 100 acres as permissible area for Machhi Singh. Machhi Singh did not appeal the Collector's order. In 1975, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Commissioner, who applied the law as laid down by the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Khan Chand v. State of Punjab, 1966 Pun LJ 138 (AIR 1966 Punj 423), and held that Machhi Singh was entitled to retain the entire area and had no land to surrender. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, set aside the Commissioner's order, holding that the appeal was incompetent as it was filed after the commencement of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Financial Commissioner erred in his interpretation of S.33(2)(ii) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. The Court held that the word "pending" in the provision should be interpreted broadly to include any proceedings that a litigant can take in a case. The Court relied on the decision of R. N. Mittal, J. in Chanan Mal Newar v. State of Haryana, 1977 Pun LJ 81 (AIR 1977 Punj and Har 34), which held that a review petition in a case is a step in the same proceeding and the proceedings for determination of surplus area shall be deemed to be pending for the purpose of review in spite of the final decision of the case. The Court also held that the right of appeal is a vested right and cannot be taken away by a subsequent enactment unless it so provides expressly or by necessary intendment. The Court further held that the Financial Commissioner's power of revision under S.24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, can be exercised even if no proceedings were pending immediately before the commencement of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.
Issues: 1. Whether the Financial Commissioner erred in his interpretation of S.33(2)(ii) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972? 2. Whether the right of appeal is a vested right and can be taken away by a subsequent enactment? 3. Whether the Financial Commissioner's power of revision under S.24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, can be exercised even if no proceedings were pending immediately before the commencement of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The word "pending" in S.33(2)(ii) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, should be interpreted broadly to include any proceedings that a litigant can take in a case. 2. The right of appeal is a vested right and cannot be taken away by a subsequent enactment unless it so provides expressly or by necessary intendment. 3. The Financial Commissioner's power of revision under S.24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, can be exercised even if no proceedings were pending immediately before the commencement of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed the Financial Commissioner's order and remitted the matter back to him for re-decision of the case but only in the sphere of the rights of Sardara tenant, if any, to his resettlement or otherwise, as justice and equity may warrant in the circumstances. The order of the Commissioner dt. 7th April, 1976 (Annexure P-3) was restored in so far as it establishes the status of Machhi Singh to be a small landowner.
1. The point involved in this petition on first impressions seems to be covered by judicial authority and yet turns to be intricattngly embroiled requiring analytical examinations.
2. The point arises in Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 2074 and 2096 of 1977 which can conveniently be disposed of by a single judgment. Facts, however, need be taken note of in Civil Writ Petition No.2074 of 1977. At this juncture, it may be focussed that Civil Writ Petition No.2096 of 1977 has been preferred by Machhi Singh, the landowner, whose land is involved in the case.
3. In Civil Writ Petition No.2074 of 1977, Smt. Kartar Kaur, the petitioner, is the daughter as also a transferee from Machhi Singh, who is a displaced person from West Pakistan. Machhi Singh was allotted 52 standard acres and 13 units of agricultural land in village Nazadalla Kalan, Tehsil and District Sirsa, somewhere in the year 1949. In August, 1958 (not before 3lst July, 1958), he transferred 1/3rd share of his total holding in favour of his daughter, the petitioner. Surplus area proceedings under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act were commenced against Machhi Singh somewhere in the year 1960 and were culminated by the order of the Collector on 30th September, 1960, who deducted 2.62 Standard acres (8.37 ordinary acres) from the holding of Machhi Singh on account of the same having been acquired by the State. Though the area was reduced to 49.51 standard acres, yet in the terms of ordinary acreage, it exceeded 100 acres. And thus the Collector leaving 100 acres as permissible area of Machhi Singh, declared the rest as surplus.
4. Machhi Singh seemingly did not take up the matter in appeal. Since Machhi Singh had earlier sold some land to Sunder Dass and two others on the avowal that the sold area would form part of the permissible area and had yet been put in the surplus pool by the Collector, the vendees filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala. The said appeal was accepted and the matter was remitted back to the Collector to discern whether the choice need be varied in order to satisfy the vendees. However, at the time of the disposal of the appeal, the Commissioner expressed doubt as to whether the area of a displaced, person - landowner be reckoned in ordinary acres when he was allotted land in standard acres. The matter, on remand, was again taken up by the Collector on 21st June, 1963. The vendees were given relief as prayed by them, but the area of Machhi Singh was again reckoned in terms of ordinary acres despite the doubt expressed by the Commissioner in that regard. And yet the doubt of the Commissioner was not an ordinary one, for the matter was engaging attention of the higher rechelons of judiciary as to the correct measure of reckoning the holding of the displaced persons vis-a-vis the locals. This Court in a Full Bench judgment reported in Khan Chand V/s. State of Punjab, 1966 Pun LJ 138 : (AIR 1966 Punj 423), held that for displaced persons the area need to be reckoned in terms of standard acreage. Had this ratio been applied to the case of Machhi Singh, he would have had no surplus area at all, for his holding stood at the time of the declaration of the surplus area, ignoring all transfers made by him, at the level of 49.51 standard acres and thus he was entitled to his entire area as his permissible area involving no surrender of land to the State. The Full Bench decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana V/s. Jiwan Singh, 1975 Pun LJ 446 : (AIR 1976 SC 63).
5. To catch the thread, the Collector, Surplus Area, reckoned the holding of Machhi Singh in terms of ordinary acreage had declared 59.44 ordinary acres as surplus. This time the petitioner, as transferee from Machhi Singh, filed an appeal to the Commissioner and was able to persuade him to apply the law as laid down by the Full Bench with regard to the reckoning of the area in the hand of Machhi Singh. Though the appeal was filed by the petitioner de
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
