IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3322 of 1986 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.11.2011 Kamla and others ...Petitioners versus State of Haryana, through Secretary to Government, Haryana, Revenue Department, Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Dilraj Kaur, Advocate, and Mr. S.N.Pillania, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Satbir Singh Goripuria, DAG, Haryana. ---- 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 adjudication relates to a determination of surplus made by the Collector on 26.08.1960. The petitioners 1 to 6 have distinct interest in the property declared as surplus. As far as the first petitioner is concerned, she is the transferee from the landowner Girja and who also incidentally is the wife of the landowner herself. On the basis of an alleged transfer, a decree appears to have been obtained on 20.02.1970. The claim by her was that she was put in Civil Writ Petition No.3322 of 1986 (O&M) - 2 - possession of the property for a half share in the year 1970 and that she got it from her father-in-law, who was the owner of the same before his death. I find the contention of the first petitioner to be inconsistent. She cannot be a transferee from her husband and at once also from her husband's father. In any event, if a civil suit decree had been passed only on 20.02.1970 that was more than 10 years after the determination of surplus, it cannot avail to her benefit. The first petitioner could have therefore no objection regarding the adjudication made. 2. The 6th petitioner and one Rugha, who was the father of the petitioners 2 to 4, had purchased the property from Girja vide sale deed dated 05.03.1954 and mutation had been entered by the patwari on 15.07.1955 and sanctioned on 30.01.1957. Since sale in favour of the 5th petitioner and Rugha has been made on 05.03.1954 itself, that is, prior to the relevant date 30th July, 1958, the property covered under the transaction cannot form part of the surplus. The property would require to be excluded and the petitioners 2 to 4 and 6 would be protected from the proceedings in relation to the property covered under the said sale deed. 3. As regards the claim of the 5th petitioner, he was the son of Puran Chand who had claimed to have purchased certain properties from the original owner on 23.03.1961 and after Puran Chand's death, 5th petitioner claimed as heir. The mutation was said to have been sanctioned on 15.10.1965. The property covered under Civil Writ Petition No.3322 of 1986 (O&M) - 3 - the sale deed was 39 bighas 12 bighas of land. This was again subsequent to the declaration of the property as surplus by the Collector on 26.08.1960 and, therefore, the sale cannot be protected. 4. The writ petition is allowed only as regards the interest of the petitioners 2 to 4 and 6 covered through the sale deed dated 05.03.1954. The remaining portion of the order of the Collector is sustained and the writ petition is disposed of as above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 25.11.2011 sanjeev