AMAR SINGH AND ORS. versus AJMER SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 312 · Decided: 11-07-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, YOGESHWAR DAYAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
AMAR SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
AJMER SINGH AND ORS. 
JULY 11, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.) 
Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1971-Section 12(3)-Vesting 
of surplus land in State Government-Surplus area declared under the Punjab 
Security of Land Tenures Act, 195J-Proceedings finalised in 1961162--Held: 
C Cannot be reopened-Non-utilisation of surplus land possession continued to 
be with land owne,..-..Held: Would not make any difference. 
Proceedings under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 
were initiated against 'M', father of the first respondent. He owned 61 
standard acres and 9 units of land. There was a partition decree by the 
D Civil Court partitioning the lands among 'M' and his sons. After taking 
this into account, the Collector declared as surplus 9 acres and 3-3/4 units 
of land owned by 'M'. A review petition filed against the said order was 
dismissed. 
E 
As per s. 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 
the surplus land declared under the Punjab Act vested in the State from 
24.1.1971. Accordingly the first respondent was dispossessed of the land 
and the possession given to the appellant. The first respondent challenged 
the same but was unsuccessful. Later, he moved an application before the 
Sub Divisional Officer for correction or the revenue record. The applica-
F 
lion was dismissed on the ground that the decree of the Civil Court 
regarding partition was already taken into consideration by the Collector 
while determining the surplus area under the Punjab Act in the. year 
1961/1962. Thereafter the first respondent filed a writ petition b¥'ore tile 
High Court and a Single Judge allowed the petition and quashed the order 
G of the competent authority. The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed. 
Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. The High Court fell into patent error in allowing the Writ 
H Petition as the surplus proceedings under the Punjab Security of Land 
312 
AMAR SINGH v. AIMER SINGH [KULDIP SINGH.J.]. 
313 
Tenures Act, 1953 had been finali•ed way back in 1961/1962 and there is A 
no provision under the Haryana Ceiling on Holdings Act, 1972 lo reopen 
the surplus determined under the Punjab Act. (315-D-E] 
Jaswant Kaur & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (1977) P.L.J. 230, 
distinguished. 
2. Simply because the surplus land declared under the Punjab Act 
was not utilised and ii remained in possession of the first respondent 
would not make any difference so far as the position in law is concerned. 
B 
The language of Section 12(3) oflhe Haryana Acl is unequivocal and clear. 
According lo ii the surplus land declared under the Punjab Act stood C 
vested in the State. The non-utilisation of surplus land till the date of 
vesting (December 23, 1972) is of no consequence and makes no difference. 
(315-F·G) 
Smt. Bhagwanti Devi &Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (1994) 1 Scale 
861, relied on. 
• 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3146 of 
1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.11.87 of the Punjab & 
D 
Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 391 of 1987. 
E 
V.C. Mahajan, K.G. Bhagat for S.K. Jain for the Appellants. 
S.K. Bisaria for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KULDIP SINGH, J. Marn Ram (deceased), father of Ajmer Singh, 
respondent in the appeal herein, was a big landowner. The Punjab Security 
of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (Punjab Act) came into force· with effect from 
April 15, 1953. On that date Maru Ram owned 61 standard acres 9 units 
F 
of land. It was stated that there was a partition decree by the civil court G 
on the basis of which the holding of Marn Ram was partitioned amongst 
• him and his three sons namely Prithi Singh, Surat Singh and Ajmer Singh. 
Proceedings under the Punjab Act were initiated and 9 acres and 3-3/4 
units of land owned and possessed by Marn Ram was declared surplus by 
the Collector, Kamal, on March 10, 1961. The Collector, Karna~ took into H 
314 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
consideration the partition decree and all other material placed before the 
Collector. Against the order dated March 10, 1961, the three sons of Maru 
Ram filed a review petition which was heard by the Collector, Karna! on 
merits and was dismissed by his order dated. July 26, 1962. It is not disputed 
before us by the learned counsel .appearing for Ajmer Singh-respondent 
B that the orders dated March 10, 1961 and July 26, 1962 have achieved 
fi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.