CWP No.2348 of 1986 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2348 of 1986 Date of decision: January 31, 2011 Phul Singh alias Phula (since dead) through his legal representatives and others. .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr Hari Om Attri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr K.C.Bhatia, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr O.P.Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 7 to 9. None for respondent Nos.5-A and 6. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral): Vide order dated 20.4.1983, learned Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Allotment Authority, Hissar, allotted 42 kanals 1 marla of land comprised in Sq./Killa No.139//19(8-0), 20/1(6-0), 21(8-0), 22 (8-0), 23/1 (7-10), 23/2(0-1), 140//25/2(4-14) in all measuring 42 kanals 5 marlas situated in village Kabrail to Birbal, predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos.4 to 9 in preference to the petitioners, who were non-occupancy tenants on the said land. The petitioners challenged the aforementioned order by way of an appeal but the same was dismissed by the learned Collector, CWP No.2348 of 1986 -2- Hissar vide order dated 29.8.1983. Even the revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Commissioner, Hissar Division, Hissar vide order dated 5.8.1985. Hence, the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. To claim the benefit of tenant permissible area, the petitioners were required to show that they were in cultivating possession of the land in question on 15.4.1953. However, from the material brought on record by the petitioners, it has been shown that they were cultivating the land only from Rabi 1957 and, therefore, they were not entitled to any preference at the time of allotment. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Nanak Chand vs The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 1981 PLJ 99 wherein after relying upon an earlier Single Bench judgment in Bahadur Ram and others vs State of Punjab and others, 1969 PLJ 372, it was held that even if the tenant had not been in possession of the permissible area on 15.4.1953 and came in possession lateron, it would not affect the permissible area, meaning thereby that if on 15.4.1953, the land in question was not in possession of a tenant and such a person came in possession of the said land lateron as a tenant, he would be entitled to get the area declared as tenant's permissible area. I have perused the aforesaid judgments. Both the judgments were delivered under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Ac, 1953 wherein the tenants had opposed the prayer made by the landowners regarding their ejectment. Therefore, both the judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case so as to hold that the CWP No.2348 of 1986 -3- petitioners had any preferential right to claim the area as tenant's permissible area. No ground for interference in the impugned orders is made out. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (T.P.S.MANN) January 31, 2011 JUDGE Pds.