JODHA RAM (DEAD) BY LRS. versus FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 169 · Decided: 11-10-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

JODHA RAM (DEAD) BY LRS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 11, 1993 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.) 
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 195J-Section 9( 1 )(i }- Lands 
declared as surplus area-Application u/s 9 ( J)(i/ to evict tenants-Whether 
maintainable---Held, No. 
The appellant filed a petition u/s 9(1)(i) of the Punjab Security of 
Land Tenures Act, 1953, for eviction of the tenants, on the ground that be 
himself was a small land bolder and the tenants held large areas of land. 
The Assistant Collector held that as the appellant was a smaU land owner, 
A 
B 
c 
he was entitled to recover the possession f'f the lands in dispute. The 
Collector, however, allowed the appeals of the tenants, on the ground that D 
the lands which were the subject matter of controversy, had been declared 
as surplus area and the appellant was not entitled to evict the tenants and 
to take possession thereof. That finding was affirmed by the Commissioner 
as well as the Financial Commissioner. A writ petition filed before the High 
Court was dismissed. The High Court held that the lands having been E 
declared as surplus area and the validity of the order having not been 
questioned at any stage earlier, it was not open to the writ petitioner to 
question the same in a proceeding initiated by him u/s 9(1) (i) of the Act, 
for eviction of the tenants. Hence this appeal. 
The appellants submitted that even if the land had been declared as F 
surplus area, as there was no provision in the Land Tenures Act. In respect 
of vesting of such lands in the State, the title and ownership of the lands 
shall be deemed to have been conveyed to the appellant who continued to 
be the owner thereof, he was entitled to get the tenants evicted. 
It was also urged that after coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling 
on Land Holdings Act, 197.2, section 8(1)(a) specifically exempted transfer 
of even surplus area made prior to 30·7-1958, the land in question shall 
not be vested in the State Government u/s 1.2 (3) of the Act. 
G 
The question that arose for consideration was whether after decla· H 
169 
170 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
ration of the lands as surplus area under the provisions of the Land 
Tenures Act, the appellants could have taken possession of the lands u/s 
9(1)(i) by evicting the tenants. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD 1.1 In view of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 10-A of the Punjab 
Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, once any land is declared as surplus 
area, in accordance with the provisions of that Act, then the right of 
utilization of such land remains with the State Government and the 
landowner has only the right to receive rent from the tenants settled on 
C such lands. His right to utilize the said land or to remain in possession 
was absolutely curtailed. If the landowners had no right to utilize the land, 
declared as surplus area or to remain in possession thereof, application 
on his behalf u/s 9(l)(i) to evict the tenants and to resume possession of 
the lands in question could not have been entertained by the authorities. 
Section 9(1) (i) conceives lands, over which the landowner after eviction of 
D the tenant, can resume possession of such lands. [174·D·F] 
1.2 Even if it was held that the transfer made in favour of the 
appellant in respect of the excess area being prior to 30·7·1958, will n'Ot be 
affected by Section 12(3) of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, still 
E 
the application for recovery of possession filed on behalf of the appellant 
u/s 9(1) (i) of the Land tenures Act had to be dismissed, because in view of 
F 
G 
• Section lO·A of the Act, the appellant was not entitled to resume possession 
of the lands in question, after evicting the tenants. [177·C·D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3514-16 
of 1982. 
From the Judgment and Orders dated 8.1.1981 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2026, 2027 and 2028 of 
1980. 
G.L. Sanghi, S.K. Mehta, and Dhruv Mehta for the Appellants. 
M.R. Sharma, Jamshed Bey, H.K. Puri and Ms. Anjana Sharma for 
the Respondents. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
., 
-
J. RAM I'. FINCL. COMMR. [N.P. SINGH. J.] 
171 
N.P. SINGH, J. These appeals have been filed against the orders A 
dated 18.1.1981, passed by the High Court, dismissing the writ petitions 
filed on behalf of Jodha Ram, Om Parkash, Lckh Ram and others, for 
quashing the order 

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