CWP No.2100 of 1991 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.2100 of 1991 (O&M) Dated: 4th August, 2011 Suresh Chander and others … Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana and others … Respondents ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. K.C. Bhatia, Addl. AG, Haryana, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. A.K. Verma, Advocate, for respondents No.6 to 9, 11 to 13 and 18. None for respondents No.5, 10, 14, 15, 19 and 20. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the orders passed by the authorities under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 seeking for exemption of surplus area declared under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. It appears that the holding of original big landowner Smt. Ram Ditti was attracted to the proceedings under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and her holding 21 SA 5 ¾ units were declared to be surplus. After such CWP No.2100 of 1991 (O&M) [2] declaration and assumption of possession by the Government, the surplus had been allotted to several individuals amongst respondents No.6 to 20. 2. Smt. Ram Ditti’s husband’s brother claimed exemption of these properties without a challenge to the original declaration made under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. The exemption sought for was declined by the proceedings of the Collector Agrarian Panipat, District Karnal and this order was sustained consistently at every higher level of the quasi judicial authorities prescribed under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. 3. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioners but I have brought out the facts in the manner narrated by the counsel appearing for respondents No.6 to 9, 11 to 13 and 18. The counsel for the State is also present to affirm the correctness of the order passed by the authority. 4. I find that the petition has no tenable case to project and I have proceeded to dispose of the case on merits although there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. The case is of the year 1991 and no further delay in disposal could be made. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. August 04, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE