IMPORTANT POINT
Surplus Land--Exemption from declaration--That benefit of exemption under Section 8 of the Haryana Ceiling Act cannot be claimed when land had already been utilized and allotted.

K.S. Garewal, J.:-This as well as the connected petitions involve the interpretation of Section 8(1) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Ceiling Act) and exemption of land from surplus area by the State Government. This provision excludes land which had been purchased before July 30, 1958 from being declared surplus. However, lesser questions also arise but they would be answered on the basis of the decision which is taken on the main point of law.

2. The facts of the case are being taken from CWP 5188 of 1990. Ghasitu Singh’s categoric averment is that he and his three brothers had bought 204 Kanals 2 Marla from Bishan Singh for valuable consideration vide sale deed dated June 12, 1958. They had been put in possession of the deed. Petitioners were not related to the vendor and were small landowners.

3. On July 1, 1960 Bishan Singh’s surplus area case was decided and the land in question was put in the surplus pool. This was done without notice to the purchasers. Some of the land was also banjar jadid and kadim and had been so recorded in the revenue record. So this land deserved to be exempted altogether in terms of the definition of land given under Section 2 (8) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Punjab Law) read with Section 4(1) of the Punjab Tenancy Act.

4. Subsequently, 26 Kanals 8 Marlas was allotted to Sampuran Singh under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 as a tenant Land measuring 61 Kanals 18 Marlas, out of the land purchased by the petitioners from Bishan Singh, was allotted to Partapa (father of Sada Ram respondent 4) under the said Rules.

5. Sampuran Singh and Partapa remained tenants. They did not purchase the land under Section 18 of the Punjab Law nor obtained proprietory rights before the commencement of the Ceiling Act. Sampuran Singh died in 1976. Partapa also died in 1976.

6. Petitioners filed an application before the prescribed Authority, Jagadhri, to get the land exempted from the Ceiling Act. Their application dated June 2, 1978 was allowed on July 27, 1978. Appeals were filed against that order by the allottees/tenants, which were dismissed by the Collector on August 27, 1980. However, on the basis of the order passed in revision by the Commissioner on April 17, 1984, the case was remanded back to the Prescribed Authority for passing a fresh order. After a full hearing to both sides, a fresh order was passed by the Prescribed Authority and the land in question was again exempted in terms of Section 8(1) of the Ceiling Act. Appeals filed by respondent 4 were dismissed. However, their revision was accepted by the Commissioner and further revision filed by the petitioners before the Financial Commissioner was also dismissed.

7. In these cases the sole question is with regard to the entitlement of the purchasers of land from big landowner to seeks its release, because the purchase was before July 30, 1958.

8. The decision of the question raised by the petitioners would depend upon a review of the case law on the subject and interpretation given by courts.

9. To begin with the provisions of law should be revisited. Under Section 8 of the Ceiling Act, no transfer of the land in excess of the permissible area under the Punjab Law after July 1958 shall affect the right of the State Government under the said law to the surplus area.

10. Learned counsel relies upon Jaswant Kaur and another Vs. State of Haryana, 1977 PLJ 230 F.B. This case relates to challenge to the constitutional validity of the Ceiling Act but the provisions of Section 8 also came up for consideration. On harmonious construction it came up to be held that transfers of land in excess of the permissible area under the Punjab or Pepsu Law would be protected if made before July 30,1958.

11. The above view again came up for consideration before Full Bench in State of Haryana Vs. Chandgi, 1981 PLJ 494 and it was again held that “a bare perusal of the afore