PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Kang, J.
Narpat Singh
Versus
State Of Haryana
C.W.P. No. 3850 of 1978,
Decided On : DECEMBER 5, 1984
HARYANA CEILING ON LAND HOLDINGS ACT - SECTION 8 - TRANSFER OF LAND - INTERPRETATION - SURPLUS AREA DETERMINATION - TENANT'S RIGHTS - VESTING OF SURPLUS AREA - HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION OF SECTIONS 8 AND 12(3) - PROTECTION OF TRANSFERS PRIOR TO 30.7.1958.
Fact of the Case:
Narpat Singh, a landowner, owned 33 standard acres and 1 unit of land on April 15, 1953. He transferred 12 standard acres and 9-1/4 units of land to Rampat, Om Datt, and others before July 30, 1958, leaving him with 20 standard acres and 7-3/4 units of land. The Collector declared 3 standard acres and 1 unit of Narpat Singh's land as surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, which was allotted to Baljit Singh as a tenant. The Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act came into force in 1972, providing that transfers of land prior to July 30, 1958, would be protected. Narpat Singh applied for the benefit of Section 8 of the Act, which was granted by the Collector (Agrarian) but later overturned by the Collector.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the transfer of land by Narpat Singh prior to July 30, 1958, was protected under Section 8 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The court interpreted Sections 8 and 12(3) of the Act harmoniously, giving effect to both provisions. The court found that Baljit Singh, the tenant, had not acquired the surplus land under the Punjab Law but was merely allotted the land and resettled thereon. Therefore, the protection of Section 8 was fully available to the sale of the land by Narpat Singh.
Issues: Whether a transfer of land by a landowner in excess of his permissible area before July 30, 1958, which land has been declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and allotted to a tenant, can be ignored while determining the surplus area of such a landowner under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles established in Jaswant Kaur v. State of Haryana and State of Haryana and others v. Chandgi, which held that Sections 8 and 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act should be construed harmoniously to give effect to both provisions. The court found that the transfer of land by Narpat Singh prior to July 30, 1958, was protected under Section 8 of the Act, and that Baljit Singh, the tenant, had not acquired the surplus land under the Punjab Law.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Collector, Sonepat, which had overturned the Collector (Agrarian)'s decision to grant Narpat Singh the benefit of Section 8 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act.
S.S.Kang, J.
1. Whether a transfer of land by landowner in excess of his area before 30.7.1958, which land has been declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and which land had been allotted to a tenant in accordance with the scheme framed under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules can be ignored while determining the surplus area of such a landowner under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act is the primary question agitated in this Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. It has been filed under the following circumstances.
2. Narpat Singh petitioner owned 33 standard acres and 1 unit of land on April 15, 1953. Thus he had three standard acres and 1 unit of land in excess of the permissible area i.e. 30 standard acres prescribed under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (the `Punjab Law for short). Narpat Singh effected bona fide transfer of 12 standard acres and 9-1/4 units of land by a registered sale deed to Rampat, Om Datt and others. The vendees were rank strangers to Narpat Singh petitioner. After this transfer the petitioner was left with 20 standard acres and 7-3/4 units of land on 30.7.1958 which was well within the permissible area of 30 standard acres.
3. The Collector Surplus Area, Sonepat, decided the surplus area case of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Law on 29.2.1960 and declared 3 standard acres and 1 unit of land equivalent to 40 ordinary Kanals and 2 ordinary Marlas as surplus in the petitioners hands ignoring the sale made to Rampat, Om Datt and others. Under the Punjab Act, land declared surplus was included in the surplus pool but it continued to be in the ownership of the landowner. Baljit Singh respondent No. 4 to this petition was allotted the land declared surplus in the petitioners hand in accordance with Part IV of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules (for short, the Rules) Under Rule 20-C of the Rules a tenant who is resettled on the surplus land becomes a tenant of the landowner in whose name the land in question stands in the revenue record. He is liable to pay the customary rent to the landowner and is required to execute a Qabuliyat or a Patta in favour of the landowner before he is put in possession of the land. In short, the allottee of the surplus land, according to the Punjab Law, does not acquire the land comprised in his tenancy. After being declared surplus, this land does not come to vest in the State and remains the property of the landowner. Though Baljit Singh became a tenant under the petitioner on allotment of the surplus land to him on 25.9.1964, he did not make any application for acquiring the proprietary rights therein under Section 18 of the Punjab Law.
4. The Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as `The Haryana Act) was enacted by the Haryana Legislature and came into force on December 23, 1972. Section 6 provided that save as otherwise expressly provided in that Act, the provisions thereof shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Thus the provisions of the Haryana Act had overriding effect over the Punjab Law. According to Section 8 of the Haryana Act all transfers or dispositions of land even if they were in excess of the permissible area determined under the Punjab Law were protected if they were made prior to 30.7.1958. In a way for determining whether the petitioner had any area of land in excess of his permissible area under the Haryana Act the holding of such a landowner on 30.7.1958 had to be a reckoned. The petitioner had owned and possessed 20 standard acres and 7-3/4 units of land on 30.7.1958. The order of the Collector dated 29.2.1960 declaring 3 standard acres and 1 unit of petitioners land as surplus was rendered ineffective by virtue of the provisions of Section 6 of Haryana Act. Same applies to the order dated 25.9.1964 allotting the surplus area of the p
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.