SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2104

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, JJ.
Ram Kumar & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
LPA NO. 1303 of 2017 (O & M) AND CWP NO. 18452 of
Decided On : 15-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. B.S. Rana, Sr with Mr. Nayandeep Rana and Mr. Naveep Doon, Advocates, for the appellants (in LPA-1303-2017).
None; For the Petitioners (in CWP No. 18452 of 2018).
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. AG, Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, AAG, Haryana.
Ms. Vibha Nagar for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocates, for Respondent No.5

Headnote:(A) Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 - The court addressed issues related to the delay in filing petitions regarding surplus land allocation and the status of claims for separate units by heirs of landowners. The court found that the authorities had not adequately considered relevant factors, leading to a remand for further examination. (Paras 1, 6, 9)

(B) Principles of Natural Justice - The court emphasized the necessity for authorities to provide a fair hearing before making decisions affecting landowners' rights. (Para 6)

Facts of the case:
The legal representatives of a deceased landowner filed petitions concerning the denial of land units for major sons, claiming established rights and challenging previous allotment to another party. The original allocation was contested due to a lack of proper proceedings.

Findings of Court:
Orders dismissing claims were set aside; the case was remanded for fresh consideration, ensuring all factors and rights were duly addressed.

Issues: The court addressed whether the landowners' sons were entitled to separate units, questioning prior decisions made without full context.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that substantial delay alone should not bar legitimate claims and that all rights must be thoroughly evaluated before decisions are made.

Result: Appeals allowed; orders of previous authorities set aside, requiring fresh hearings.

Table of Content
1. challenge to orders regarding land allotment (Para 1)
2. matter remanded for fresh consideration (Para 2)
3. details of land ownership and allotment (Para 3)
4. issues of land possession and allotment (Para 4 , 5)
5. disputes regarding timely actions and jurisdiction (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
6. re-examination of land ownership and surplus (Para 9)
7. final ruling on appeals and responsibilities (Para 10)

JUDGMENT

G.S.Sandhawalia, J.

The present judgment shall dispose of LPA No.1303 of 2017 and CWP No. 18452 of 2018. CWP No. 18452 of 2018 has been filed by the legal representatives of Zile Singh, who is son of Late Kundan Lal, the big land owner challenging various orders passed by the authorities below wherein, his claim for the separate units by including his two sons namely Zile Singh and Meer Singh, who were major on the appointed day i.e. 15.04.1953 has been denied. In LPA No. 1303 of 2017, challenge is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the same legal representatives of Zile Singh and Meer Singh was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches on 11.07.2017 wherein, challenge had been raised to the allotment of the land made to respondent No.5 Gugan s/o Late Chiman, the original allottee out of the same land which had been declared surplus, which is subject matter of the writ petition. It is in such circumstances, both the cases are being decided together. The learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion that the orders which were being impugned in the writ petitioner which was filed in the year 2017 had been passed by the Financial Commissioner on 17.09.2013 and, therefore, there was substantial delay of four years in preferring the writ petition and, therefore, the appellants had been shown the door.

2. After perusing the file, we are of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be remanded for fresh consideration at the hands of the prescribed authorities as various factors had not been kept into consideration and the orders which have been impugned in CWP No. 18452 of 2018 passed by the statutory authorities have missed out certain relevant facts.

3. It has been pleaded that Kundan Lal s/o Mukh Ram was owner of 67 bighas 8 biswas of land situated in the revenue estate of village Atail, District Rohtak in the year 1953. After consolidation in the year 1958- 59, he was allotted 356 kanals and 15 marlas of land in Khewat No.7690. On 22.04.1960, 7-18 ¾ standard acres of land falling in Killa Nos.108/10 to 108/13, 104/12 to 104-19, 21 min. East, 3-8-22 was declared surplus land and he was held entitled for 37-13 ¼ standard acres in the ex parte proceedings taken against him. His claim was that Zile Singh and Meer Singh were two major sons and were entitled for separate units and they had continued in actual physical cultivating possession of the land in question. Though it has not been pleaded by the writ petitioners but it has come from the written statement as such of the official respondents No.1 to 4 that on 22.07.1974, the SDO (C), Rohtak-cum-Prescribed Authority had directed that since Zile Singh, Power of Attorney of the big land owner Kundan Singh, was not present, though being present on the earlier occasions, he had directed the CRO to fill up Form No.II under HARYANA CEILING ON LAND HOLDINGS ACT , 1972 (in short 'the 1972 Act') against him. A perusal of Annexure R-7 would go on to show that Kundan Singh had filed an application on 31.12.1973 that he could not fill up Form No.I undre Section 9 of the 1972 Act and Form No.II may be got filled up as the Halqa Patwari had not supplied him the revenue record. He had apparently given the names of his family members and he was thus asked to come present and had remained present on 02.07.1974 and 22.07.1974. A perusal of Annexure R-9 would go on to show that there was a declaration made that form was duly filled up as per the details given and there was a declaration made under Section 9 of the 1972 Act rega

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top