KRISHNA KUMARI AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 133 · Decided: 27-11-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

KRISHNA KUMAR! AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 27, 1998 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
B 
~ 
-
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953/Punjab Security of Land 
Tenures Rules, 1953; ss.9(1) (i) and 10-A(b)/Rules 20-A, 20-B, 20-C and 20-
D-Surplus area-Utilisation of-Held, since tenant was in possession of the 
land throughout, his title could be traced to allotment of land followed by C 
delivery of possession after completion of all formalities including execution 
of 'Kabuliyat'-Delivery of possession being official act of Revenue Circle 
Officer, a presumption has to be raised that all antecedent formalities were 
duly complied with-Non-availability of Form-K-6 or Kabuliyat on record 
is of no consequence. 
D 
Certain land belonging to appellants' father, the tenure-holder, was 
declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. 
After the death of the tenure-holder, the appellants moved an application 
under s.10-A(b) of the Act that since each of the heirs got land less than 30 
standard acres of land and the surplus land had not been utilised, the same E 
should be taken out of the surplus pool. It was reported by the Patwari and 
the Naib Tehsildar that on the said surplus land no tenant was re-settled. The 
S.D.Q. (Civil) exempted the land from the surplus pool on 30.11.1972. Later, 
the appellants filed an application before the Collector for cancellation of 
allotment order dated 13.7.1976 made in favour of 'M', father of respondent 
No.3. The application was allowed and the allotment made in favour of 'M' F 
the tenant, was cancelled holding that the land had not been utilised and had 
been exempted from surplus pool. However, the order was challenged by the 
tenant and ultimately the Collector found that an area of 40 Kanals 16 
Marlas had already been allotted to the tenant on 21.2.1964 and possession 
thereof had also been delivered to him on 17.3.1964. It was found that the G 
surplus land had already been utilised before the death of the tenure-holder. 
The application for releasing the land from the surplus pool was ultimately 
rejected. The appellants having lost before the Financial Commissioner and 
the High Court, filed the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellants that issuance of certificate in Form H 
133 
134 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
, A K-6 as provided under Rule 20(A) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures 
Rules, 1953, delivery of possession of surplus area as indicated in Rule 12-
B and execution of Kabuliyat by tenant in favour of landlord as laid down in 
Rule 12-C were mandatory requirements and since these steps were not 
completed, the surplus land could not be treated to have been utilised. It was 
B submitted that process of utilisation did not move beyond the stage of allotment 
order in favour of the tenant and neither the possession was taken over by 
him nor did he execute any kabuliyat in favour of tenure-holder till the time 
of latter's death on 12.1.1971 on which date the land came to be inherited 
by the appellants and their mother. 
C 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court. 
HELD : I.I. Since the tenant was in possession throughout, he shall 
be treated to have had a valid title to remain in possession which can be 
traced to the allotment of land followed by delivery of possession after 
completion of all other formalities including execution of "Kabuliyat" or 
D Patta. (150-E) 
1.2. Whether all the steps indicated in the Punjab Security of Land 
Tenures Rules, 1953 for utilisation of land were observed and followed or 
not, is a question which has been considered by all the authorities before 
whom the matter was agitated and they have concurrently held against the 
E appellants and have recorded the finding that possession of the land allotted 
to the tenant was delivered to him. (142-F-G] 
2. The land in question was, admittedly, allotted to the tenant in 1964. 
Form K-6 was issued as far back as in 1964. Since it has be~n mentioned 
in the report for delivery of possession and is also mentioned in the index, 
F its non-availability on the file would be of no consequence and it would be 
treated to have been issued at the relevant time in terms of the requirement 
contained in the Rules. [142--D-E] 
3.1. Undoubtedly, all the requirements indicated in Rule 20-C of the 
G Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1953 are mandatory in character 
and, therefore, clause (c) of Rule 20-C will al

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