CWP No. 3487 of 1986 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3487 of 1986 Date of Decision: 16.12.2009 Maha Singh and another .....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Roopak Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri Gagandeep Singh Wasu, Senior DAG, Haryana. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Challenge in the present writ petition is to the utilisation of the land in possession of the petitioners for the purpose of resettlement of tenants under the Haryana Utilisation of Surplus and other Areas Scheme, 1976 and to declare Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 ( for short `the Act'), as ultra vires. In Smt. Bhagwanti Devi v. State of Haryana and another, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1869, the question of vesting of land in terms of Section 12(3) of the Act, came up for consideration. It was held to the following effect:- CWP No. 3487 of 1986 [2] “....The language of S.12(3) is unequivocal and clear. According to it the surplus lands declared under the Act stand vested in the State. Even otherwise, the non-utilisation of surplus land till date of vesting i.e. on December 23, 1972 is not material. The object of the Act and S.12(3) of 1972 Act was redistribution of surplus land among the landless ryots and agricultural labour and to confer title on them. The Act enabled the owner of the surplus land to recover rent from the lessee and enjoy the income till date of vesting and no more. Section 32 of Haryana Act admittedly declared all exemptions under Rule 8 as of no avail w.e.f. January 24, 1971 in that it expressly states thus:- “As from the appointed day exemption granted in relation to the utilisation of surplus area under orchards, tea-estates or well run farms by virtue of the provisions of the rules framed or purported to have been framed under the Punjab Law, shall stand withdrawn.” 5. Therefore, from the appointed day the possession held by appellants of surplus lands becomes unlawful and entitles the Collector or competent officer to resume possession of them from appellants. Neither Section 12(3) nor Sections 7 and 9 of the Haryana Act empower the ceiling authority to reopen the proceedings relating to surplus lands which had become final is also made clear by Section 33(2)(ii) thereof. Section 33(2)(ii) says that the surplus CWP No. 3487 of 1986 [3] area determined in the pending proceedings under the Act shall be done under that Act and surplus land shall vest in and be utilised by the State Government in accordance with the provisions of the 1972 Act. Sub-section (2)(ii) of Section 33, no doubt, deals with determination of surplus area so determined in the State.” In view of the said finding, the land declared surplus vests with the State on December 23, 1972 in terms of Section 12(3) of the Act. Therefore, the fact that the petitioners continued to be in possession of the land after the same vested with the State is of no consequence and does not entitle the petitioners to seek re-opening of the order declining land surplus. It may be noticed that the land was declared surplus before the commencement of the Act and the order declaring the land surplus has attained finality. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. Hence, the same is dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE [ JORA SINGH ] JUDGE 16-12-2009 pk/ds