LPA No.638 of 1997 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.638 of 1997 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.9.2010 Khumba Ram & others ...Appellants Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. S.S. Godara, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Pardeep Singh Poonia, Addl. A.G. Haryana. Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate for respondents No.5 & 6. Ranjan Gogoi, J. (oral) Heard. The challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal is against an order dated 25th April, 1997, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in proceedings registered and numbered as CWP No.3851 of 1982. By the aforesaid order, the writ petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed. The facts of the case lie in a short compass may be recapitulated as under:- The appellant-writ petitioners are legal heirs of one Rampat. Under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tenures Act”), by an order LPA No.638 of 1997 2 dated 12.12.1960, surplus land to the extent of 40.42 ordinary acres was determined. The aforesaid determination attained finality under the provisions of the Tenures Act. Thereafter the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ceiling Act”) came into force w.e.f. 24.1.1971. The original land owner Rampat died on 10.7.1973 leaving the appellant-writ petitioners as his legal heirs. By an order dated 25.8.1980, the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Dabwali, who is also the prescribed authority under the Ceiling Act, allotted surplus land of Rampat to the extent of 17.47 ordinary acres to eligible allottees under the provisions of Utilisation of Surplus and other Areas Scheme, 1976. Aggrieved by the said order of the S.D.O. (Civil), the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, Sirsa and being unsuccessful, assailed the order of the appellate authority by filing a revision before the learned Commissioner. The revision petition having been dismissed, all the aforesaid orders were questioned in the writ petition, out of which this LPA had arisen. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioners is to the effect that as the Ceiling Act had come into force w.e.f. 24.1.1971, the surplus area under the Ceiling Act had to be determined before any area, which had been declared surplus under the Tenures Act, could be utilized for allotment under the Scheme. There was no such determination of surplus area in the hands of the appellant-writ petitioners as the legal heirs of deceased Rampat. Therefore, the orders of the S.D.O. (Civil), the learned Collector as well LPA No.638 of 1997 3 as the learned Commissioner were legally infirm. The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition took the view that under the provisions of Section 12 (3) of the Ceiling Act, the area declared to be surplus under the Tenures Act, is deemed to have been vested in the Government before the appointed date of coming into force of the Ceiling Act i.e. 24.1.1971. The learned Single Judge recorded the view that as the surplus area under the Tenures Act in respect of landlord deceased Rampat was determined on 12.12.1960, by virtue of the provisions of Section 12 (3) of the Ceiling Act, the said land stood vested in the State Government w.e.f. 24th January, 1971 by operation of law and the original landlord Rampat, who was alive on the said date i.e. 24.1.1971, ceased to be owner of the aforesaid surplus land. On the said finding, the learned Single Judge thought it proper to dismiss the claims advanced in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the aforesaid contention which did not find favour with the learned Single Judge. The same has been vehemently opposed by Shri Ashok Verma, Advocate appearing for respondents No.5 & 6 as well as by the learned State counsel contending that there is no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge as the conclusions are in conformity with the provisions of Section 12 (3) of the Ceiling Act. Upon the due consideration of the rival contentions and the provisions contained in Section 12 (3) of the Ceiling Act, we find that LPA No.638 of 1997 4 the surplus land determined in the hands of the deceased- original land owner Rampat had vested in the State Government on 24.1.1971 i.e. during the life time of the original land owner. In such a situation, there will be no hesitation on our part to take the view that the deceased- original landlord had ceased to have any right over the land declared to be surplus under the Tenures Act during his life time and accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the allotment of the said land made by the first authority i.e. S.D.O. (Civil), as affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. In view of our above conclusion, the issue with regard to allotment by the body that did not consist of 2 (two) non- official members stands self-answered. As the appellants have been found to have no legal right to the land or to obtain allotment thereof, the above issue is wholly academic. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost. (Ranjan Gogoi) Judge (Rajan Gupta) Judge September 21, 2010 'rajpal'