C.W.P. No.995 of 1986 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.995 of 1986 Date of Decision. 05.12.2011 Mukhtiar Singh and others .....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate and Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. O.P. Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana and Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 order passed by the authority under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Haryana Act of 1972”), on a dismissal of an application filed at the instance of the petitioners that the property, which had been secured by means of a gift deed dated 16.06.1958 must be excluded in terms of Section 8(1) of the Haryana Act of 1972. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the property had been declared as surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 on 20.06.1960 in the hands of big land owner Arjan Singh. It is a matter of record that Arjan Singh moved an application for C.W.P. No.995 of 1986 -2- review, which was dismissed. He had died on 06.03.1964 and his sons brought about a similar review application seeking for certain exclusions of land namely of property which was Banjar Qadim. A redetermination, which was done was finally revoked through a decision of the Commissioner, holding that on declaration of the property as surplus after the declaration was made on 20.06.1960, the property had also been utilized and allotted to some persons on 25/26.10.1963. Even a portion of property, which had not been taken possession on account of the crop being there, was ultimately delivered possession to the allottees on 28.11.1963. 2. The petitioners had in an earlier round of litigation contended that when certain exclusions were made and the surplus had been reduced from 18 standard acres and 4 units to 14 standard acres and 3 ¾ units, allotment in favour of the tenants could not have been continued. It was also argued that after Arjan Singh died in the year 1964, there was a requirement for redetermination of surplus in the hands of the heirs. Through a judgment of this Court rendered on 09.12.1982, which was reported as Mukhtiar Singh Vs. State of Haryana in 1983 PLJ 67, this Court held that where by way of concession, the resettled tenants allowed land owner to take away crops standing on part of allotted land, on the completion of such an act proceedings for delivery of possession were complete and no further act was required to be done in the context of utilization of land in terms of Section 10-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. So holding, the Court held that allotment already made to the tenants could not be reopened nor could the persons seek for a redetermination of the property held in surplus. C.W.P. No.995 of 1986 -3- 3. After the disposal of this writ petition, it appears that there had been a challenge by means of an appeal through LPA, which was also dismissed by a Division Bench. Subsequent to this dismissal, land owners have come with an application under Section 8(1) of the Haryana Act of 1972 contending that there was a gift in their favour on 16.06.1958 and in terms of Section 8 of the Haryana Act of 1972, all transfers prior to 30.07.1958 were saved and therefore, the property which had been settled in their favour on 16.06.1958 was entitled to be excluded. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, who are the allottees, contends that the reference to certain transfers which could fall within the permissible area after 30.07.1958 came for the first time through the Haryana Act of 1972 but if in any situation there had already been a determination of the surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and utilization had also been done in terms of Section 12, the property would become vested with the State and the same cannot be reopened through an application under Section 8 of the Haryana Act of 1972. Learned counsel for the petitioner would respond to this argument by pointing out a Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Jawant Kaur and another Vs. The State of Haryana and another AIR 1977 P&H 221 when it examined the constitutional vires of the Haryana Act of 1972 and particularly dealing with provisions of Sections 4, 8 and 12(3), it held that no provision of Section 4 or 8 was inconsistent with Section 12(3). In view of the findings rendered by the Full Bench, I would only hold that there is no scope for applying any exclusion under Section 8, if any portion of the property held by the owner had been declared as surplus under the Haryana Act of 1972 and property was C.W.P. No.995 of 1986 -4- held properly utilized. The vesting which Section 12 contemplates does not make possible for a donee to make an assertion for entitlement by a reference to a transaction of a gift or any form of transfer prior to 30.07.1958. 4. Learned counsel states that the petitioners are still in possession of the property and the property had not been utilized at all. He also seeks for the matter to be remitted either to the authorities below or to secure evidence from the revenue officials as who is in possession of the property. I cannot undertake such an exercise especially after a final conclusion of the decision has come where the petitioners themselves were parties before this court in earlier round of litigation in Mukhtiar Singh Vs. State of Haryana referred to above. 5. The issue of possession cannot be a matter for fresh evidence and it should follow what the official records reflect. If the property had been allotted to private respondents No.4 and 5 and that allotment had been taken to be a final utilization of property in earlier round of litigation, it shall conclude the issues between parties and it cannot be permitted to be reopened again. There is no scope for a fresh interference through the writ petition in the manner sought for. 6. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 05, 2011 Pankaj*