CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19694 OF 2005 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 28, 2009 Nawal Singh and others .....Petitioners VERSUS Commissioner Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioiners. Mr. Narender Sura, AAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. J. V. Yadav, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 to 6. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Through this writ petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the order sanctioning mutation of the land in favour of State of Haryana after it was declared surplus. Appeal as well as revision against this order were also dismissed by District Collector and Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon vide orders dated 19.4.2005 and 18.10.2005 respectively, which are also impugned in CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19694 OF 2005 :{ 2 }: the present writ petition. The petitioners claim to be tenants on payment of fixed Chakota from the year 1943-44 under Shambu Dayal. On his death, the petitioners became tenants of son of Shambu Dayal. On 30.4.1959, the petitioners purchased this land from sons of Shambu Dayal, as they did not possess any land. Mutation was accordingly entered and sanctioned in their favour. The tenants, however, continued to be in possession but the names of the petitioners were recorded in the revenue record as owners. After the death of tenant, Med Singh, the petitioners inherited the tenancy rights. They became full owners as they had already purchased the land in question. Accordingly, they claim to be in possession of this land. In the year 2004, notice was issued to the petitioners by SDO-cum-Prescribed Authority Gurgaon, under Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Lands Holding Act (for short, “the Ceiling Act”) for mutating the land in dispute in the name of State of Haryana on the ground that the land purchased by the petitioners was surplus area of big land owner. The petitioners were directed to furnish evidence within 15 days. The petitioners filed detailed submissions in response. The prescribed authority, however, by making a mention to the order dated 5.1.1960, passed an order on 29.12.2004, directing the vesting of the land in the name of State of Haryana in terms of the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Ceiling Act. The mutation accordingly was entered in the name of the State. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioners have been dismissed and that is how they have filed the present writ petition. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19694 OF 2005 :{ 3 }: While issuing notice of motion, it was noticed by the Division Bench of this Court that by virtue of notification dated 15.9.1976, the status in regard to the sale of land out of surplus area was extended upto 15.4.1966 and this fact has escaped the notice of the authorities while ordering vesting of this land in the name of the State of Haryana. The reply has been filed by the respondents. Preliminary objection is raised in regard to the maintainability of this writ petition by the petitioners for want of locus on their part. It is disclosed that the land in dispute belong to Ram Avtar, Laxmi Narayan, Trilok Chand sons of Shambu Dayal, who were given full opportunity before the land was declared surplus. The petitioners, who are subsequent purchasers, were not required to be given any opportunity. It is also disclosed that they had no right to purchase the surplus land from the big land owners. A perusal of the reply would also disclose that 108 ordinary acres, including the land in dispute, was declared surplus on the appointed date i.e. 15.4.1953. This land, accordingly, came to vest in the State of Haryana under Section 12(3) of the Ceiling Act. The big land owners had never given this land on lease to the petitioners and as such, they did not have any right to purchase this land from the big land owners after 30.7.1958. This sale is stated to be not bonafide and was carried out in collusion with the big land owners and the sale as such is hit by Sections 10-A and 10-B of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953. It is also stated that Med Singh had full knowledge about the order dated 5.1.1960 declaring the land surplus because he had already purchased another surplus CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19694 OF 2005 :{ 4 }: land under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioners has referred to Gurbachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1993(1) R.R.R. 152 to say that notice and opportunity of hearing was required to be afforded to the petitioner, who is a transferee and thus, a person interested in the proceedings for declaration of surplus area. The counsel also refers to Om Parkash and others Vs. State of Haryana, 1993 (3) R.R.R 296 to say that where the land is declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, which is purchased before 16.4.1966, then it would be exempted in terms of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 and such a land can not vest in the Government and has to be exempted. It is seen that the 36 acres of land owned by sons of Shambu Dayal, which will include the land in dispute, was declared surplus under the old Act of 1953. This order was never challenged either by the owners or by the father of the petitioners, Med Singh, who claimed himself to be the tenant. This land after being declared surplus has come to vest in the State and Shambu Dayal was left with no right to sell the same after the appointed date i.e. 30.7.1958. Counsel for the respondents would also point out that Form F had already been submitted by the big land owners where they did not choose the area sold to the petitioners. The instructions, which have been relied upon by counsel for the petitioners to say that the cut of date was extended, would also not be applicable to the present case and would not otherwise override the provisions of Section 8 of the Ceiling Act. As per this Section, the exemption can not be granted in CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19694 OF 2005 :{ 5 }: the case of the petitioners. As already noticed, the petitioners have not challenged the order declaring the land surplus. Accordingly, the land has been rightly ordered to have vested in the State of Haryana. No case for interference, thus, is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. January 28, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE