Transfers of surplus area made before 30th July 1958 are protected under Section 8 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, except for land utilized for the settlement of tenants before the commencement of the Act.

S.S.Kang, J.

1. This is writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Smt. Ishwar Devi for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders Annexure P.2 passed by the Collector Karnal on 8th February, 1979 and Annexure P.4 passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala on July 29, 1980.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Smt. Kauri Bai, grand-mother of the petitioner who was a displaced person and a big landowner transferred 240 bighas of land to the petitioner by a registered Tamlik Nama dated June 1, 1956. A mutation reflecting this transfer was sanctioned on December 10, 1956. The land initially was Banjar Qadim, Thur and Gair Mumkin and was reclaimed by the petitioner after spending huge money. It is the claim of the petitioner that she resides at Delhi and did not know as to whether her grand-mother was a big or a small landowner or whether her surplus area case was ever decided or not. It was only in February, 1978, that she was called upon by the Naib- Tehsildar, Karnal and told that the land transferred to her was surplus and the same was going to be utilised for settlement of tenants thereon. The petitioner, thereupon, made an application to the Collector Agrarian, Karnal, stating that she was a transferee from Smt. Kauri Bai and was entitled to a hearing before the latters surplus area case was decided but she was never served with any notice nor was she heard. She prayed that the land in dispute be taken out of the surplus pool or in the alternative this land should be exempted from utilisation in accordance with the provisions of law and instructions of the Haryana Government dated 29th October, 1976. The petitioner did not own any land apart from the land in question. The instructions provided that the transfers and dispositions of surplus area under the Punjab Law or Pepsu Law made before 30th July, 1958 stand regularised by law and as a result of this the surplus area which had been transferred or disposed of by a landower before 30th July 1958 shall not vest in the State Government under section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act), and, therefore, such area cannot be utilised in accordance with Haryana Utilisation of Surplus and Other Area Scheme, 1976. The Collector, Agrarian, Karnal allowed the application of the petitioner and observed that the land owned by the petitioner was within the permissible limit and the same had been transferred to her prior to 30th July, 1958 therefore this land will not vest in the State and will not be available for utilisation.

3. Surja and Antu, respondent No. 3 and 4 were settled on a portion of the land in dispute in accordance with the Haryana Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme (for short the `Scheme). The Collector also ordered that form US 3 which had been issued to the respondent be cancelled. This order was passed on June 26, 1978.

4. Surja and Antu, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed two separate appeals against this order before the Collector, Karnal. He allowed the appeals on February 8, 1979. He set aside the orders of the Collector, Agrarian. Dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner filed two revisions petitions before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, under section 18(4) of the Act. He dismissed the same on July 29, 1980 and the copy of the orders is Annexure P.4. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

5. Shri Ram Rang, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the surplus area declared under the Pepsu Law or Punjab Law before 30th July, 1958 were protected under Section 8(1) of the Act. They do not vest in the State Government under section 12(3) of the Act and cannot be utilised for the resettlement of the ejected or ejectable tenants or eligible persons.

6. The Collector, Surplus Area while deciding the case of Kauri Bai in 1962 never issued any notice to the petitioner, who being a transferee and her name be