SMT. BHAGWANTI DEVI AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR .

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 180 · Decided: 19-01-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SMT. BHAGWANTI DEVI AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR . 
.(I 
JANUARY 19, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953/The Htuymuz Ceiling 
on Land Holdings Act, 1972 : 
C 
S. 2(5-a), r.Bof RulesframedunderAct/ss.7, 9,12(3), 32, 33(2)Surplus 
area-Exemption granted to landholders retain surplus land-In inte"egnum 
sons of landholders became majors-Landholders claimed reopening of dec-
laration-Held, s.32 of Haryana Act declared all exemptions under r.8 of no 
avail w.e.f appointed day-Lands declared surplus under Punjab Act vested 
in State under s.12(3) of.Haryana Act w.e.f 24.12.1972-Neither s.12(3) nor 
D ss.7 and 9 of Haryana Act empower ceiling authority to reopen proceedings 
relating to surplus land which had become final under Punjab Act and surplus 
area in pending proceedings under Punjab Act shall be determined under that 
Act. 
E 
Abatement of appeal-One of' the respondents died during pendency of 
appeal-Legal heirs not brought on recortJ--,..Appeal abated-Held since cause 
of action being dismissal of appeal against one respondent, that operates 
against other respondents also. 
Certain lands of appellants were declared as surplus under s.2(5) of 
F 
the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. On appellants' applica-
tions under r.8 of the Rules framed under the Act, they were permitted to 
continue to use the surplus area after ejecting the tenants. On coming into 
force of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, the appellants 
filed writ petitions before the High Court, contending that meanwhile the 
G minors in the family having become majors the lands cannot be regarded 
as surplus with them. The writ petitions were dismissed. Hence the appeals 
.. by special leave. 
· 
It was contended on behalf of the appellants that though the lands 
were declared as surplus under the Punjab Act, the appellants continued 
H to remain in possession and enjoyment of the lands as the owner and by 
180 
-
> 
/ 
,.>--
BHAGWANTI DEVI v. STATE OF HARYANA 
181 
virture of ss.7 and 9 of the Haryana Act, the Ceiling area should be A 
redetermind. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Section 32 of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 
declared all exemptions under r.8 of the Rules framed under the Punjab B 
Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 granted in relation to the utilisation 
of surplus area of no avail w.eJ. the appointed day, i.e. 24.1.1971, and from 
that day the possession held by ~e appellants became unlawful and 
entitles the Collector or competent officer to resume possession of them 
from the appellants. But for the exemption the appellants· had no right to C 
remain in possession. [183-F-H; 184-A] 
2. In view of s.12(3) of the Haryana Act, the lands declared surplus 
under the Punjab Act vested in the State w.e.r. 24.12.1972. Even otherwise, 
the non-utilisation of surplus land till date of vesting is not material. The 
language of s.12(3) is unequivocal and clear. (183-D] 
D 
3. Neither s.12(3) nor ss.7 and 9 of the Haryana Act empower the 
ceiling authority to reopen the proceedings relating to surplus land that 
had become final is also made clear by s.33(2)(ii) of Haryana Act which 
says that determination of surplus area in the pending proceedings under E 
.the Punjab Act shall be done under that Act and surplus land shall vest 
in and be utilised by the State Government in accordance with the 
provisions of the Haryana Act. The legislative intendment, therefore, ap-
pears that the surplus area declared under the Punjab Act shall remain 
to be surplus. There is no express provision in the Haryana Act indicating 
that surplus area declared under the Punjab Act should be reopened and F 
recomputed under the Haryana Act. If any area that becomes surplus 
under the Haryana Act since the surplus area was reduc:ed from 31 acres 
to 17112 acres, that surplus area should be redetermined under s.7 read 
with s.9. Therein if a son becomes major and resides separately, he is 
entitled to a separate unit etc. (184-A-D] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2532-
35/85 etc. etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.1981 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No.5298of1981. 
H 
182 
SuPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1994) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
AM. Singhvi, G.K. Bansal, S.M. Ashri, K.K. Mohan, Rajiv· Dutta, 
B 
Vipin Nair, Mahabir Singh, J.D. Jain, Ms. Shirin Jain, Ms. V. Mohana and 
Ms. Indu Malhotra for the appearing parties.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.