IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1267 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 27.07.2011 M/s Indian City Proprietors Ltd. …..Appellant versus The State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.R.D.Bawa, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Jaspal Singh Maanipur, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. This order will dispose of four Letters Patent Appeals bearing Nos.1267, 1268, 1269 and 1270 all of 2011, involving similar question of law and facts. For facility of reference, facts are being taken from LPA No.1267 of 2011. This appeal has been filed against a judgment dated 17.3.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing CWP No.6142 of 1994, filed by the appellant. As per facts on record, by filing the above said writ petition, the petitioner had laid challenge to an order (P1), vide which, land measuring 176 standard acres 11.3/4 units was declared surplus in the hands of the big land owner M/s Bharat Starch and Chemicals Ltd. Yamuna Nagar (respondent No.5). The appellant had also challenged in that writ petition, Form F issued on 3.1.1994 (P2) along with a notice sent by the Collector on 1.2.1994, stating that the appellant had purchased the land out of the land LPA No.1267 of 2011(O&M) declared surplus. Mutation qua that land had been entered in the name of the Government under Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (in short, the Act) and if the appellant had any objection, it may raise the same before the above said officer. Further challenge was made to an order passed by the Collector rejecting objections raised by the appellant. In these appeals, the appellants are the vendees from a big land owners and admittedly, had purchased the land after an order has been passed on 5.10.1962, declaring land measuring 176 standard acres 11.3/4 units as surplus in the hands of the big land owners. However, the land was purchased before Form ‘F’ was drawn on 11.1.1994. Admittedly, respondent No.5 was a big land owner. Land was declared surplus on 5.10.1962. Appeal was dismissed on 25.6.1963. Thereafter, the big land owner approached the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 8 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (in short, the Rules) for exemption of surplus area from utilization by stating that an Orchard was in existence. Thereafter big land owner started the process of sale to the appellants which are the companies, admittedly, linked to the big land owners in one or the other manner. The detail of sale of land has been noticed by the learned Single Judge in his judgment. In the meantime, the Act came into existence. Again an unsuccessful attempt was made to re-agitate the matter by the big land owner and the vendees before the revenue authorities. The big land owners even came to this Court by filing CWP No.9610 of 1991 to lay challenge to an order dated 5.10.1962 and order passed by the Commissioner on 25.6.1963. It was argued before this Court that because, as per Rule 6(7) of 2 LPA No.1267 of 2011(O&M) the Rules, Form ‘F’ was not issued, the orders, mentioned above, cannot be sustained. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 22.9.1993. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:- “No writ challenging the order passed by the Collector and the Commissioner was earlier filed and simply because the petitioner challenged the vires of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, it would not debar him from agitating the case on merits so as to plead and prove that the order passed even in pursuance of provisions of Punjab Security on Land Tenures Act is had for one reason or the other. An imperative duty is cast on the Collector to prepare a statement in Form ‘F’ and forward the same immediately for service on the landowner or the tenant. The purpose of service this form on the land owner or tenant is to let him know the actual decision of the Collector giving a detailed statement as to what area has been declared surplus and which area has been left as his (landowner’s or tenant’s) permissible area. The order passed under sub-rule (6) together with the statement in form ‘F’ constitute the actual decision of the Collector affecting a landowner or a tenant. This mandatory procedure prescribed in the rules was not followed, thus, vitiating the orders passed by the Collector. Case of Mulkh Raj v/s Financial Commissioner Haryana & ors. (supra) relied upon by learned Additional Advocate General is with regard to compliance of rule 5 of the Punjab on Land Tenures Act, 1956. All that was held therein was that it was not correct that reservation under section 5(1) was complete only when Patwari in compliance with Rule 5 made a 3 LPA No.1267 of 2011(O&M) report verifying contents of reservation form under rules, 5 the mere fact that Revenue Authorities did not do their duties could not possible adversely affect right of landowner. This judgment is, thus, not relevant as it does not deal with the controversy in hand. As the order of the Collector Agrarian is not complete as it is without preparing statement in form ‘F’ and sending it to the land owner, it is directed that the Collector Agrarian would proceed with the case from the date when the order dated 5.10.1962 was passed. As the order of the Collector Agrarian has not been set-aside, as mentioned earlier, the matter would be proceeded further and form ‘F’ shall be prepared on served on the land owner in accordance with law. The order passed by the Commissioner is, however, set aside. The writ petition is allowed in the manner indicated above but there shall be no order as to costs.” Perusal of the order indicates that despite objections raised, an order declaring land surplus in the hands of respondent No.5 on 5.10.1962, was kept intact. However, only directions were issued to the Collector to proceed further and prepare Form ‘F’ on the specified Form, which was accordingly done thereafter. Once, the order declaring the land as surplus in the year 1962 has been upheld, the sale of surplus land to the appellant and others, even though it was made before the preparation of Form ‘F’, it cannot be sustained. The learned Single Judge has looked into the arguments raised by the appellant in detail, to say that the vendees were not entitled to any right of hearing as claimed by them. It has also been found, as a matter of fact, that the land was sold to the corporate entities closed to 4 LPA No.1267 of 2011(O&M) or connected with the big land owner. Counsel for the appellant has failed to negate the above said finding at the time of arguments. Before this Court, an attempt was made to assail an order passed on 5.10.1962 by stating that once it is proved on record that in consequent to above said order, the Form ‘F’ was not prepared and served upon the big land owner, the said order cannot be implemented. This argument is liable to be rejected because the order mentioned above had already become final when CWP No.9610 of 1991 was disposed of by this Court on 22.9.1993. The appellant, who had purchased the land after declaration of surplus area in the hands of the big land owners, is bound by the order passed by the Collector declaring the land surplus. By noting the facts, as mentioned above, the learned Single Judge has rightly held as under:- “The proceedings for drawing up of and serving of Form-‘F’ are a mere ministerial act and do not confer any right upon the petitioners to pray whether in law or in equity that surplus area proceedings should be re-opened by affording them an opportunity of hearing. The vendees/petitioners cannot claim a right much less an indefeasible right to a hearing in proceedings, that concluded in the year 1962 or proceedings initiated pursuant to the order dated 22.09.1993 passed in CWP No.9610 of 1991. The Collector, by declaring that the big land owner and one of the vendees M/s Doaba Industrial and Training co. Pvt. Ltd. did not possess surplus area in his order dated 21.03.1980 disregarded this fact and passed an order that was not only null and void but was passed by overlooking the fraudulent conduct of the petitioners and the big land owner. The order passed by the Collector was, therefore, rightly set aside. 5 LPA No.1267 of 2011(O&M) As regards the pleas raised by the big landowner, it would be appropriate to once again mention that after declaration of surplus area on 05.10.1962 the big landowner did not furnish field numbers as in the meanwhile he had approached the Deputy Commissioner for exemption of surplus area from utilization. The exemption having been granted on 25.05.1965, the big landowner, confident in his belief that his land had been saved from the provisions of the Punjab Act, proceeded to sell his land to corporate entities that have a prima-facie link to the big landowner. With the enactment of the Haryana Act, all exemptions granted from utilization of surplus area came to an end and by operation of Section 12(3) of the Haryana Act, land declared surplus under the Punjab Act came to vest automatically in the State of Haryana. The mere fact that Form-‘F’ may have been drawn up in the year 1994 does not entitle the big landowner to urge that surplus area proceedings finalised in the year 1962 should be re-opened by allowing the land owner to make a fresh selection by taking into consideration the illegal and fraudulent sale deeds executed by the big landowner during this interregnum. The argument that the Collector had no jurisdiction to allot this land is not legally tenable as with the enactment of the Haryana Act land declared surplus in 1962 came to vest in the State of Haryana by operation of law. The drawing up of Form-‘F’ as already held is a mere ministerial act for the purpose of identifying specific khasra number (field numbers) and has no relevance to the extent of the area declared surplus. A Collector, while preparing Form-‘F’, cannot increase or decrease the surplus area so declared and merely identifies field numbers that are to remain with the landowners or that are to vest in the State. 6 LPA No.1267 of 2011(O&M) In view of what has been stated hereinabove, it is held that orders passed by revenue authorities, holding that land declared surplus in the year, 1962, vests in the State of Haryana and allotments made to private respondents are legal and valid. The orders, holding that the petitioners-transferees do not have any valid right, title or interest in the surplus area, do not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law as would require interference. Consequently, the writ petitions are dismissed, with no order as to costs.” At the time of arguments, counsel for the appellant has failed to show anything, on the basis of which, interference can be made in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 27.07.2011 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 7