Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
T.H.B. Chalpathi, J.
Balwant Singh - Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondents
C.W.P. No. 549 of 1983.
Decided On : 28 April, 1997
HARYANA CEILING ON LAND HOLDINGS ACT, 1972 - SECTION 8(1)(B), 8(3), 12(1) - BONA FIDE PURCHASER - NOTICE TO TRANSFEREES - SURPLUS LAND - DETERMINATION - VESTING IN STATE GOVERNMENT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners purchased land from Baljit Kaur (respondent No. 4) after the appointed day (24th January 1971). The Collector determined the surplus area of respondents No. 4 and 5 on 9th February 1979, without issuing any notice to the petitioners. The Financial Commissioner dismissed the petitioners' revisions, holding that the landowner did not claim the sale deeds to be bona fide and that the land had already been utilized. Petitioners challenged these orders in writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a bona fide purchaser after the appointed day is protected under Section 8(1)(b) of the Act. The burden of proving the bona fide nature of the transfer lies on the transferor. Surplus area should first be taken from the landowner, and transferees should only be affected if the surplus cannot be made good from the landowner's remaining area. No notice was given to the petitioners, who were transferees of the 4th respondent. The court held that a notice is required to be given to all affected persons under the provisions of the Act.
Issues: Whether the petitioners, as transferees of land declared surplus under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, were entitled to notice before the determination and utilization of the surplus area.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, and the principles of natural justice. It held that a transferee is a person interested in participating in the proceedings for declaration of surplus area and must be given an opportunity of being heard to avoid his interest being prejudicially affected. The court also held that the surplus area vests in the Government only on the determination of the surplus area under the provisions of the Act.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders of the Collector and the Financial Commissioner and remanded the matter to the Collector to decide afresh after giving an opportunity to all concerned.
T.H.B. Chalapathi, J. - As common question of law and facts arises in both these cases, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
The petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No. 549 of 1993 purchased the land of an extent of 66 kanals 1 marla from Baljit Kaur respondent No. 4, under registered sale deed dated 10.6.1977 for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- executed by the power of attorney holder of Baljit Kaur namely Surjit Singh who is her husband (respondent No. 5). As the vendor Baljit Kaur and her husband Surjit Singh owned land exceeding the permissible limit under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act) they submitted a declaration under the Act. The Collector assessed the total holding of respondents No. 4 and 5 as 897 kanals 3 marlas which came to be 1567 kanals 6 marlas of C category land. By an order dated 9.2.1979 the Collector held that the respondents No. 4 and 5 were entitled to 132 kanals of C category land as permissible area and declared the remaining land as surplus.
2. The petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 554 of 1993 purchased 60 kanals 8 marlas of land form Baljit Kaur under registered sale deed dated 14.6.1974 for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. The sale deed was executed by her husband Surjit Singh (respondent No. 5) as the power of attorney holder of Baljit Kaur.
3. In both the writ petitions the petitioners purchased the land from Baljit Kaur and two different sale deeds were executed in favour of the petitioners in both the writ petitions. The petitioners averred that the Collector Sirsa by his order dated 9.2.1979 held that the respondents No. 4 and 5 are entitled to 432 kanals of C category land as permissible area and the remaining land owned by them as surplus. Their further case is that no notice was issued to them though they were bona fides purchasers of land for valuable consideration and that their names stood recorded in the register of mutations and that the Collector did not conduct any enquiry into the factum of bona fideness or otherwise of the transactions effected by the 4th respondent on 10.6.1977 and 14.6.1974 in favour of the petitioners in these writ petitions. Coming to know about the orders passed by the Collector dated 9.2.1979 the petitioners in both the writ petitions preferred revisions before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana in RCR 231 of 1980-81 and 230 of 1980-81. The Commissioner by his order dated 11th November, 1982 dismissed both the revision petitions on the ground that the landowner i.e. 4th respondent did not put forward the plea that the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners were bona fide in nature and, therefore, no notice was required to be given to the transferees and that the land had already been utilised. Therefore, it was not possible to re-open the case and that the transferees right was to claim compensation from the transferor. Accordingly, he dismissed the revision petitions. Aggrieved by the same the petitioners filed these two writ petitions challenging the order of the Financial Commissioner and also the order of the Collector determining the surplus area of the respondents No. 4 and 5.
4. There is no dispute that the land purchased by the petitioners belonged to the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent and her husband 5th respondent are entitled to one primary unit as permissible area. The sale deeds in favour of the petitioners came to be executed after the appointed day i.e. 24th January, 1971. Under Section 8(1)(b) of the Act a bona fide purchaser after the appointed day is protected. It is no doubt true that the burden of proving that the transfer is a bona fide one shall be on the transferor. Under sub-section 3 of Section 8 of the Act the surplus area shall be taken in the first instance from the area left with the landowner and the transferees were to be touched only if the surplus area could not be made good from the area left with the landowner. Therefore, the authorities have to
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
