FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA AND OTHERS versus KELA DEVI AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1120 · Decided: 31-10-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1120 
A 
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER,' HARYANA AND OTHERS 
v. 
KELA DEVI AND ANOTHER 
October 31, 1979 
• 
[N. L. UNTWALIA, P. N. SHINGHAL AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.] 
c 
I> 
• 
G 
H 
Punjc1b Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 Section 10(a)-Scope of-
Allotment of surplus land to tenants-When completed. 
Out of 46-odd acres of land held by the original owner (bnsband of res-
pondent No. 1 and son of respondent No. 2), the Collector declared six odd 
acres as surplus area under section 2(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures 
Act, 1953 and allotted them to two other tenants. On the death uf the original 
owner the two heirs (respondents 1 and 2) made an application stating that 
since the land inherited by each of them in equal shares was below the per111.is-
si~ area of 30" standard acres, there was no surplus area with then1 and that1 
therefore, no part of the land could be uulised for allotment to other tenan\s. 
The Collector rejected their application on the ground that the surplus area , 
having been declared during the life time of the original owner, it could not 
be excluded from the holding in the ~ands of the t\vo respondents. The res-
pondents failed in appeal and revision before the Commissioner and the Financial 
Commissioner. 
A single Judge of the High Court aUowed their petition under Articles 226 
and 227 of the Constitution in so far as it relatl!d to the application of the land 
of which possession had not been given to the other tenants. A Division Bench 
rejected the appellants appeal. 
On the question whether mere allotment of land to other tenants amounted 
to utilization of the surplus area when the re·settled tenant had not taken 
possession. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : l. While section IOA(a) of the Act empowern the State Govern-
ment to utilize any surplus area for re-settlement of' tenants, the Act does not 
define what is meant by order of utilization under the section. Clause (b) of 
the section,.however, has the effect of saving the land comprised in the· surplus 
area if it has been acquired by an heir by inheritance. Therefore, when an 
heir succeeds by inheritance that basic fact would affect the utifization of the 
surplus area, even if an order Ji.ad been mad!e under section lOA(a) for ib- uti-
lization for the resettlement of other tenants but that order had not been -, , 
implemented. [1122H, 1123A-B] 
2. A conspectus of the rules made under the Act also shows that while 
allotment of land is an initial , stage in the process of utilization of the surplus 
area, it does not complete that process as it is· necessary for the allottee to obtain 
a certificate . of allotment, take possession of the land within the specified period 
"'1d execute' necessary documents thereafter. A mere order of allotment does 
not have effect of completing that process. 
Rule 200 also points to !lie con· 
. 
' 
' 
• 
I 
t 
" 
F'lNANCIAL COMMISSIONER V. KELA DEVI (Shinghal, J.) 
1121 
clusion that a completed title does not pass to the allottee on a 111ere order 
A 
of .allotment and that onler is defeasib!e if ihe other conditions prescribed by 
· 'law· ar.e .. not fulfilled. (1123 F-GJ 
In the· instant case since the process of utilization of surplus area had not 
been completed by the time the heirs made the application it was permissible 
for the authorities to re-examine t1* question \vhether there was any surplus 
area at all after the heirs had inherited the land in equal shares so as to reduce 
B 
the area of the holding of each one of them below the· permissible area. 
[1124 B·G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2522 of 1969. 
·From the Judgment and Order dated 12-5-1969 of the Punjab and 
Haryana Higb Court in L.P. No. 8/69. 
Ravindra Bana and M. N. Shroff for the Appellant. 
T. S. Arora and M. L. Lahoty for the Respondent. 
TJ)e Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
SHINGHAL, J. One Nathi held 36 standard acres and 8 standard 
units of land in village Bhanguri, and as the "permissible area" with-
in the meaning of clause (3) of section 2 of the Punjab Security of 
Land Tenures Act, 1953, (hereafter referred to· as the Act) in his 
case was 30 standard acres, Collector (Surplus) Nuh, 
declared 
6 
standard a~res and 8 standard units of land as "surplus area", by bis 
order dated November 25, 1959. Nathi died on July 14, 1965, leav-
ing his widow Smt. Kela Devi respondent No. 1, and his mother Smt. 
Mando respondent No. 2, as heirs. The two heirs made an appHca-
tion under sec

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.