IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3675 of 1986 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.10.2011 Achhpal Singh alias Sunda son of Ram Singh, resident of Village Munda, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind and others. ....Petitioners versus The State of Haryana, through the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department, Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. O.P. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, 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. An astonishingly slipshod and lackadaisical approach in administering the land ceiling laws gives a shot in the arm to a feudal landlord that continues in possession of property in spite of declaration of surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act of 1953. The proceedings were alleged to have been taken by the decision of the Collector on 26.08.1960 declaring an extent of 36 standard acres as falling in surplus in the hands of the first Civil Writ Petition No.3675 of 1986 (O&M) - 2 - petitioner. After the consolidation took place, the Collector appears to have passed an order again on 13.10.1961 giving out the references to the khasra numbers of the property treated as surplus. The petitioners 2 and 3 claim to be transferees of the property before the alleged declaration of surplus. The petitioners contend together that mutation has been sanctioned in favour of the respective transferees on 15.07.1958. The petitioners would also state that the jamabandi entries for the year 1959-60 would refer to the transactions of sales in favour of the petitioners 2 and 3. 2. An action taken in the year 1960 is leisurely challenged in the year, 1986 and to the petitioners' avail is a justification that the State never informed or communicated the order of declaration of surplus in form-F Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules. The State files a reply contending that this property had been allotted also to tenants after declaration of the property as surplus. Pitifully even the persons to whom the property had been allotted do not find a mention in the reply. The petitioners assert in the petition that all the properties are still being held by them and no portion of the property has been utilized by the State. 3. The petitioners' case requires favourable consideration only by the fact that a declaration of surplus cannot be operative on its own unless the procedure as prescribed under law is followed and the landowner has been allowed to participate in the proceedings before the decision is taken. The impugned order is set aside, not Civil Writ Petition No.3675 of 1986 (O&M) - 3 - by any inherent merit of what the petitioners' case contains but how the State's inept handling has promoted the cause of the petitioners. 4. The writ petition is allowed. The State shall be at liberty to take appropriate action for determination of surplus in the light of provisions of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 19.10.2011 sanjeev