IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 1819 of 2011 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 27.09.2011 Niranjan Singh and others .... APPELLANTS Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the legal representatives of Amar Singh (a big land owner), for setting aside the judgment dated 9.3.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition (CWP No. 1869 of 1990), filed by the appellants for issuing direction to the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) -cum- Prescribed Authority, Kaithal, to re-determine the permissible area under the Haryana Ceiling on Lands Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as `the Haryana Ceiling Act'), and further restraining him from making allotment and divesting the petitioners of the ownership of the land, which was declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as LPA No. 1819 of 2011 -2- `the Act of 1953'), till their permissible area is re-determined. The said writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, while observing as under : “The first order declaring surplus was on 17th August, 1960 and the subsequent order under the amended provision of the new Act was on 12th November, 1981. It is pointed out by the respondents that the writ petition has been filed without exhausting the remedies under the Act and hence not maintainable. The learned counsel for the respondents states that non-utilisation of surplus area till the date of vesting would be of no consequence and would make no difference as per the decision in Amar Singh and others Versus Ajmer Singh and others-1994(2) CLJ. He also refers me to the decision in Sampuran Singh Versus State of Haryana and others-1994 (Supp) SCC 2006, that held that even if the original landowner is allowed to remain in possession after the property is declared as surplus, it wold not create any right in favour of the person that continues in possession and a fresh computation cannot be made on the holding treating the property held by the original owner as belonging to him. The same issue has also been answered by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Haryana Versus Birsala-2004 (1) PLR 458 that holds that once an order declaring a property as surplus is issued under Haryana Ceiling of Land Holding Act of 1972 and it is allowed to become final, the holding cannot be redetermined only because the surplus land had remained un-utilised till the commencement of the Act of 1972. The Bench was answering the issue of whether a State could reopen the proceeding relating to the surplus land which had become final. In this LPA No. 1819 of 2011 -3- case, there is a reversal of situation of the petitioner seeking for reopening the proceedings on the ground that the property that had been treated as surplus was allowed to be retained by the original owner namely the father of the petitioner.” Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal. It has not been disputed that vide order dated 17.8.1960, 16.22 standard acres, equal to 21 ordinary acres, of Amar Singh, a big landowner, was declared surplus under the provisions of the Act of 1953. In view of Section 12 (3) of the Haryana Ceiling Act, after coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling Act, such land shall be deemed to have vested in the State with effect from the appointed day, free from any encumbrance, irrespective of the fact whether such surplus land was utilised or not. The contention of the petitioners is that after coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling Act, when 172 kanals 14 marlas of land was declared surplus in their hands, in view of the provisions of the said Act, the prescribed authority while passing the order dated 12.11.1981 did not take into consideration the possession of the previous surplus land declared in the hands of their father and without taking into consideration the said land, they were permitted to select the permissible area. This contention has been rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge, while observing that 16.22 acres of land, which was declared surplus in the hands of Amar Singh, absolutely vested in the State on the appointed day, i.e. on coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling Act. Even if the surplus land declared under the old Act remains un-utilised, even then after coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling Act, such land LPA No. 1819 of 2011 -4- automatically vests in the State without any encumbrance. This is the established law, as has been held in the authorities, relied upon by the learned Single Judge. No merits. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE September 27, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) ndj JUDGE