LexSAMPURAN SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-/ '~ ~ A SAMPURAN SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. JANUARY 19, 1994 B [K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953/The Haryana Ceiling ~- on Land Holdings Act, 1922: c S. 2(5-a)/ss.7,9,12(3), 33(2}-Surplus area-Remained in enjoyment of land holder--ln interregnum sons of land holder became majors- Landholder's claim for reopening of declaratiort-Held, though surplus land was allowed to remain in possession of land holder, title vested in the State free from all encumbrances from 23.12.1972---Pending proceedings under D Punjab Act should be completed under that Act. •-f-- Constitution of India, 1950 : Competence of State Legislature-Power to enact laws with retrospective Operatiort-Held, Legislature is competent to enact law with retrospective effect even taking away vested rights in some cases by allowing retrospective operation of law-Haryana Ceiling on Lands Hold- E ings Act, 1972 is constitutionally valid. Certain lands of the appellant were, in 1964, declared as surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The appellant's claim that the land, though declared surplus, having been allowed to be in his possession and enjoyment, that is, to remain otherwise unutilised, he F was entitled to seek the reopening of his declaration under ss.7 and 9 of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 as in the interregnum his three sons had become majors, was rejected by the High Court. Hence, the appeal by special leave. ~ G Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. Though- the surplus land was allowed to remain in >-- possessioq_ of the previous landholder, the title stood vested under s.12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 in the State free from all encumbrances on and from December 23, 1972. Further the mere H enjoyment of surplus land allowed by the State to the previous landholder 176 SAMPURANSINGH v.STATEOFHARYANA 177 does not create any right in him to claim any title in such land. Therefore, A fresh computation among the appellant and his three sons, who later became majors, cannot be done. [179·A·B] 1.2. Section 9 of the Haryana.Act does not permit the surplus area declared under the Punjab Act to be adjusted by reopening and rec:om· putation. Neither the Haryana Act nor the Punjab Act contain any such B provision. On the other hand the provisi_on in S.33(2)(ii) of the Haryana Act that pending proceedings under the Punjab Act should be completed under that Act and the surplus land would vest in the State is a clear indication to the contrary. (178-E] c Jodha Ram (dead) by L.Rs. v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh & Ors., (1994) 1 S.C.C. 27, relied on. Jaswant Kaur v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. (1977) P & H 221, approved. 2.1. Legislatur-e is competent to enact law with retrospective effect D even taking away Vt!sted rights in some cases by allowing retrospective operation of the law. (179-D] 2.2. In the instant case, by statutory vesting of the surplus land, the pre-existing right, title and interest in the land of its holder stood vested in the State on and from December 23, 1972. This Court bas upheld Constitu- E tional validity of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. (179-D] *Mukhtiar Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (1985) 1 SCALE 21, relied on • . CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3397 of F 1984 etc .. etc. . From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.1981 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No.5298 of 1981. AM. Singhvi, G.IK. Bansal, S.M. Ashri, KK Mohan, Rajiv Dutta, G _......,, Vipin Nair, Mahabir Singh, J.D. Jain, Ms. Shirin Jain, Ms. V. Mohana and Ms. Indu Malhotra for the appearing parties. The following Order of the Court was delivered : 1. This appeal arises from the order of the Division Bench of the H 178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) lS.C.R. A Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, dated November 23, 1981 made in C.W.P. No. 5298/81. Admittedly by proceedings dated August 28, 1964 the appellant was declared to have surplus land of 117 bighas, 5 biswas of barani land as on April 15, 1964. Thereafter he remained in possession and enjoyment of the surplus land. In the W.P. the appellant B claimed that in the interregnum his three sons had become majors and that therefore the surplus area should be recomputed under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, l972. The High Court dismissed the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.