RAM SWARUP AND OTHERS versus S.N. MAIRA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 617 · Decided: 17-12-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

--
•. 
RAM SWARUP AND OTHERS 
\I. 
S.N. MAIRA AND OTHERS 
DECEMBER 17,1998 
[S. SAGHJR AHMED AND G.B. PATTANAIK, J.] 
Ha1yana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1972 (as amended in 1976)-
Section 12(3)-Retrospectively-Effect of-Punjab Security of Land Tenures 
A 
B 
Act 1953-Determination and declaration of surplus by Collector in 1961 
under Punjab Act-Vesting of land in State with retrospective effect in 1976 C 
by amendment to 1972 Act-Original surplus holder dying before notification 
giving effect to amendment-Whether surplus will, therefore, have to be 
decided afresh-Held, legislature having given the provision retrospective 
effect, viz., from 23rd December, 1972 it is to be treated as having been on 
the statute book on that date -In the eye of law, the lands in question, vested D 
with the State on 23rd December, 1972. 
Administrative Law : 
Principles of Natural Justice-Land declared surplus allotted to landless 
persons-Writ petition in High Court by heirs of original land holder decided E 
without making such allottees parties-Held, allotment and delivery of 
possession in favour of al/ottees conferred rights-An order which has the 
effect of taking away these rights could not be passed without impleading 
them as parties and without hearing them-Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings 
Act 1972. 
In 1960, the Collector passed an order under the Punjab Security of 
Land Tenures Act 1953 declaring as surplus land held by a land holder. An 
appeal to the Commissioner was dismissed in the same year. The Haryana 
Ceiling of Land Holdings Act 1972 came into effect on 23rd December 1972. 
By amendment in 1976, Section 12(3) was, inter alia, inserted in the 1972 
F 
Act providing for vesting surplus lands in the State with retrospective effect. G 
The heirs of the original land holder contended in a revision before the 
Financial Commissioner that the original land holder having died on January 
5,1976 before Section 12(3) was notified, they had inherited the land, and the 
question of surplus would have to be determined under the Haryana Act; and 
that there was no surplus. The revision was dismissed on the ground that H 
617 
618 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A the determination of surplus could not be upset after 21 years, and that . 
Section 12(3) being retrospective, the land vested in the State prior to the 
death of the surplus holder. 
The High Court, on a writ petition filed by the heirs, however, held that 
notwithstanding the retrospective effect of the provision, the original holder 
B having died before the notification, there was no vesting of the land in the 
State. It held that the heirs would be entitled to individual ceiling limits, and 
directed re-determination of the surplus under the Haryana Act. 
The appellants-allottees, who had not been made parties in the writ 
petition, appealed to the Supreme Court contending that the surplus land 
C having been allotted and delivered to them, it conferred an indefeasible right 
which could not be faken away in their absence. It was also contended that 
Section 12(3) being retrospective, it must be held to have been on the statute 
book with effect from 23rd December 1972. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD. I. The legislature having given Section 12(3) of the Haryana 
ceiling on land Holdings Act, 1972 retrospective effect from 23rd December, 
1972, the rights of the parties will have to be governed treating the provisions 
to. be on the statute book on 23rd December 1972. The land holder having 
died much thereafter, in the eye of the law the lands in question vested with 
E the State on 23rd December 1972. (621-A-BJ 
2. The land declared surplus in 1960 was allotted to different landless 
persons and possession thereof was given to them and they have been 
continuously in possession since 1976. By such allotment and delivery of 
possession in their favour, rights have been conferred on such allottees and 
F any order without impleading them as parties and without hearing them 
could not have been passed which has effect of taking away their rights. 
(620-E-GJ 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2845 of 
1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.1.89 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court in C.W.P. No. 4164of1982. 
Mahabir Singh for the Appellants. 
K.P. Bhandari, Ms. Varuna B. Gungnani and Himindee Lal for the 
-H Respondents. 
-..: 
.. 
RAM SWARUP v. S.N.MAIRA (PATTANAIK,J.] 
619 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered 

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