RSA No. 3734 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3734 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 14 , 2009 Smt. Girdawari and others ...... Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.S.K.Jain, Advocate for the appellants. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants for a declaration that the allotment made by order dated 24.12.81 (whereby certain surplus land was allotted to landless persons) was invalid Both the courts found that by a subsequent order dated 14.12.82 the appellants had offered alternative land for allotment but never acted upon the same. The following questions have been proposed:- 1. Whether there is violation of Section 14(1) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1972 which is mandatory or not? 2. Whether the order Ex.P-1 and order Ex.D-5 have been passed without notice to the deceased Ram Lal which is against the principle of natural justice or not? RSA No. 3734 of 2009 (O&M) 2 3. Whether violation of statutory provision of the Act and principle of natural justice will confer jurisdiction on the civil courts in view of Section 26 of the Act or not? 4. Whether the appellants are entitled to fresh determination of surplus area after the death of Ram Lal as the land has not been utilized or not? 5. Whether the share of married daughter of Ram Lal deceased i.e.Smt.Girdawari and Smt.Birma can be declared surplus and treated as members of the family of the deceased or not? Arguments have been addressed only on questions No. 1 and 5. Learned counsel has argued that in fact no partition as mandatorily required under Section 14 of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act 1972 was carried out and thus the entire exercise is still-born. In my opinion when the appellants and their co-owners had themselves offered alternative land as envisaged in order dated 14.12.1982 it cannot be held that proceedings under Section 14 of the Act were not carried out. Section 14 is to the following effect:- 14. POWER TO SEPARATE SHARES OF LANDLOWERS.- (1) Where a landlowner owns land jointly with other landlowners and his share of such land or part thereof has been, or is to be, declared as surplus area, the officer competent to declare such area, or where such area has been declared, the officer competent to utilize it, may on his own motion, after summary enquiry and affording to the persons interested in such land an opportunity of being heard, separate his share of such land or part thereof in the land owned by him jointly with other landowners. (2) Where, after the declaration of surplus are of any person and before the utilisation thereof, his land has beensubject4d to the process of consolidation, the officers referre3d to in sub-section (1) shall be competent RSA No. 3734 of 2009 (O&M) 3 to separate the surplus area of such persons out of the area of land obtained by him after consolidation.” Once the appellants and the other co-owners had themselves voluntarily appeared and stated that they were offering alternate land, they cannot now be heard to say that no partition of their land took place. Learned counsel has further argued that the last part of the order dated 14.12.82 clearly remanded the case back to the allotting authority for realloting and looking into the allotment already made. However, in view of the fact that the appellants have continued in possession both of the offered land and the land originally allotted, it would not lie in their mouth to now argue that the other conditions of the mandate having not being implemented the entire exercise is vitiated. In regard to question No.5 learned counsel has argued that the share of the married daughters has to be separated since after the death of Ram Lal in 1990 the land was mutated in their name. It cannot be disputed that mutation confers no title. In the circumstances the questions proposed above are answered against the appellant. Consequently this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE October 14, 2009 sunita