Civil Writ Petition No. 1848 of 1982 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 1848 of 1982 Date of Order: 01.07.2010 Natha Singh through his Legal Representatives ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. J.S.Thind,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gagandeep Singh Wasu, Sr. DAG, Haryana for respondents no.1 to 3. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioner, since deceased, prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 10.03.1981, passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Haryana Utilisation of Surplus and other Areas Scheme, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme') framed under the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act). The land in dispute was admittedly declared surplus, in the hands of Chandu Ram, by an order dated 08.09.1965, passed by the Collector Agrarian, Sirsa. The petitioner purchased 49 kanals and 6 marlas out of this land from Chandu Ram, by way of registered sale deed dated 03.03.1976. The Prescribed Authority, proceeded to allot this land to eligible allottees. The petitioner filed an appeal, against Civil Writ Petition No. 1848 of 1982 -2- the order of allotment, before the Collector, Sirsa, praying that as he had purchased the land, by a bonafide sale deed, the land should be excluded from the operation of the scheme of allotment. Vide order dated 08.12.1981, the Collector dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser, for valuable consideration, without any knowledge that the land had been declared surplus. The land should, therefore, be excluded from surplus area. It is further submitted that as the petitioner's sons were in possession as tenants, they should have been given a preferential allotment, of the land in dispute. It is prayed that the writ petition should be allowed and the land purchased by the petitioner should be excluded from surplus land. Counsel for the State of Haryana, on the other hand, submits that the land in dispute was declared surplus on 08.09.1965 and vested, in the State of Haryana, on the appointed day, by virtue of Section 12(3) of the Haryana Act. The big land owner, had no right to deal with this land much less sell it to the petitioner (since deceased). It is argued that as the land vested in the State of Haryana, the Prescribed Authority, allotted the land in accordance with the Scheme. It is further submitted that as the petitioner has purchased surplus area, after it vested in the State of Haryana, the sale deed executed in his favour is a nullity. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner has no right, title or interest in the land in dispute. The land in dispute was owned by Chandu Ram, a big land owner and was declared surplus Civil Writ Petition No. 1848 of 1982 -3- on 08.09.1965, in proceedings initiated under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Punjab Act). Section 12(3) of the Haryana Act, postulates that land declared surplus under the Punjab Act shall vest in the State of Haryana, on the appointed day i.e. 24.01.1971. The land in dispute, therefore, vested in the State of Haryana, on 24.01.1971. As the big land owner, Chandu Ram, had no subsisting interest in the land in dispute that he could validly transfer to the petitioner, the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is a nullity. The big land owner apparently defrauded the petitioner and sold the land to him by way of a registered sale deed dated 03.03.1976. The land that vested in the State of Haryana, was rightly utilised by the Prescribed Authority and allotted in accordance with the scheme. The petitioner or his legal representatives have no right, whether in law or in equity to pray for exclusion of this land from utilisation under the Scheme or to pray for an opportunity of hearing. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner states that as the deceased petitioner's sons were sitting tenants on surplus area they were entitled to a preferential allotment under the Scheme and should, therefore, be allowed to approach the Prescribed Authority for allotment of the land in dispute or alternative land, in accordance with their eligibility. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed but with liberty to the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner to approach the Prescribed Authority for allotment of alternative land, in accordance with their eligibility, if any, under the provisions of the Haryana Act and the Scheme. The Civil Writ Petition No. 1848 of 1982 -4- liberty so granted shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion as to the eligibility of the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner. No order as to costs. July 01, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE