The main legal point established in the judgment is that the surplus area case was not required to be re-determined under the 1972 act if the surplus land had remained unutilized as on the cut-off date specified in the 1972 Act.

G.S.Singhvi, J.

1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 30.9.1992 of the learned Single Judge allowing C.W.P. No. 3020 of 1980 filed by the respondents for quashing order dated 21.7.1980 passed by Sub Divisional officer (Civil), Narwana for allotment of their surplus area to eligible persons.

2. The facts:

By an order dated 27.4.1961, the Collector, Agrarian, Sonepat determined the surplus area case of petitioner No. 1 under Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1953 and held that he had surplus area to the tune of 12 Standard Acres. Petitioner No. 1 did not challenge that order, but after a gap of 11 years, he filed an application for re-consideration of that order. The same was rejected by the Collector vide his order dated 15.6.1972. Appeal filed against that order was dismissed by Commissioner, Hisar. Division, Hisar vide his order dated 19.8.1974 and revision filed by petitioner No. 1 was dismissed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana vide order dated 29.9.1975 (Annexure R2). Thereafter, by an order dated 21.7.1980, Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Narwana allotted the surplus land of the petitioners to the eligible persons. The respondents challenged orders dated 27.5.1961 and 21.7.1980 in C.W.P. No. 3020 of 1991 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge with the following observations; "The surplus area as contended by the petitioners counsel, has to be determined under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act (26 of 1972) before it is utilised for allotment of eligible persons. This plea could not be controverted by the State counsel. Admittedly, on the commencement of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holding Act, the petitioner No. 1 was in possession of the area declared surplus under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1953 and the surplus area has to be determined under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act. Allotment of surplus land to the alleged eligible persons under the impugned order dated July 21, 1980 cannot be sustained before it is re-determined under the Haryana ceiling on Land Holding Act."

3. Shri Jaswant Singh invited our attention to the judgments of a Division Bench of this Court in Bharat Bhushan v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1990 P.L.J. 563 and of the Supreme Court in Smt. Bhagwanti Devi and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr., 1994 P.L.J. 245 and Sampuran Singh v. The State of Haryana and Ors., (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 423 (S.C.) and argued that the surplus area case of the land holder is not required to be determined under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 (for short, the 1972 Act) simply because the surplus land remained unutilised at the time of commencement of the said Act. He further argued that the learned Single Judge was not justified in quashing order dated 21.7,1980 because the original order passed by Collector, Agrarian had merged in the subsequent order passed by the Collector, Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar and Financial Commissioner and the petitioners had not challenged those orders.

4. Shri R.S. Mittal could not put forward any tangible argument to support the order under challenge.

5. We have gone through the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Deputy Advocate General and agree with him that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is legally unsustainable. In Bhagwanti Devis case (supra), the Supreme Court negatived the argument that the surplus area of the land owner is required to be determined under the 1972 Act if the surplus land remains in the hands of the land owner and observed:

"No doubt under 1953 Act, there is no specific provision which provided for vesting of the surplus lands, declared thereunder. The Collector had power to take possession of the surplus lands and utilise them under East Punjab Utilisation of Lands Act, 1949, by their allotment to the tenants for cultivation. But for the exemption granted under Rule 8 of the Rules, the appellants had no right to remain in possession. Having got the benefit of Rule 8