SURINDER NATH DEWAN versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 186 · Decided: 19-01-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
·D 
E 
F 
SURINDER NATH DEWAN 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 19, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972: Section 12(3). Decl4-
ration of surplus land-Assigning of such land to landless pool'-lssue of 
>- _ 
show-cause notice to Declarant of surplus land-Whether necessary. 
The appellant was declared to have 15 standards acres as surplus 
land by an order of the Collector dated December 12, 1960 made under the 
East Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. That order became final. 
Earlier, in the year 1956 under the East Punjab Area Utilisation of Lands 
Act, 1949, possession of certain land now declared as surplus, was taken 
by the Collector and leased out to a tenant. However, during consolidation 
proceedings, the appellant obtained an order from the authorities that he 
had only 5 standard acres of surplus land. Subsequently, he sought for 
restoration of land leased as being surplus land and the authorities issued 
directions to restore the leased land to the appellant. But simultaneou~ 
proceeding were taken to assign the earlier declared surplus land to the 
. 
' 
landless poor. The appellant unsuccessfully questioned before the High 
Court the action of the respondent in assigning such land to the landless 
poor. 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the.appellant 
that since the appellant was declared as surplus holder only of 5 standard 
acres of land; the respondents could not assign the lands in excess of 5 
standard acres without show cause notice to the appellant. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
G 
HELD : By opeTation of Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on 
Land Holdings Act, 1972, the surplus land stood vested in the.State free 
from all encumberances on and with effect from December 23, 1972. From 
that date then pre-existing right, title and interest in 15 standard acres 
)--._ 
including that in 5 standard acres of land stood vested in the state and 
the appellant stood divested of the title to the land. Therefore, the question 
H of restoring S acres of land to the appellant or giving notice to the 
186 
- __,,>.-.. 
S.N.DEWAN v.STATEOFIL.\RYANA 
187 
appellant, does not arise. (188-B, C] 
Jaswant Kaur v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. (1977) P & H 221 and Jodha 
Ram v. P.C. Haryana, [1994] 1S.C.C.27, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2133 of 
A 
1984. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order da~ed 23.11.1981 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No.5298of1981. 
A.M. Singhvi, G.K. Bansal, S.M. Ashri, K.K. Mohan, Rajiv Dutta, 
Vipin Nair, Mahabir Singh, J.D. Jain, Ms. Shirin Jain, Ms. V. Mahana and C 
Ms. Indu Malhotra for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
1. The appellant was declared to have 15 standard acres as surplus 
land by an order of the Collector dated December 12, 1960 made under · D 
the provisions of the East Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, 
which had come into force on April 15, 1953. That order became final. 
Earlier, in the year 1956 under the East Punjab Area Utilisation of Lands 
Act, 1949, the possession of 41 kanals 19 marlas which is now declared as 
surplus, was taken by the Collector and leased out to a tenant. It appears 
that during consolidation proceedings, the appellant had manoeuvred to E 
obtain a decision from the authorities that he had only 6 standard acres of 
surplus land. Subsequently, in the year 1979, the appellant sought for 
restoration of land leased as being surplus land. In pursuance thereof, the 
Authroities appear to have issued directions to restore the leased land to 
the appellant. However, a simultaneous proceeding appears to have been F 
taken to assign the earlier declared surplus land to lapdless poor. The 
appellant questioned the action of the respondent in assigning such surplus 
land to the landless poor on the ground that he was not given even show 
cause notice, by filing a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed 
by order dated 3.1.1994. The present appeal by special leave is directed 
against that order. 
G 
2. Shri K.K. Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously 
contended that the appellant while is declared as surplus holder only of 5 
standard acres of land, the respondents could not assign the lands in excess 
of 5 standard acres that too without issue of show cause notice to the 
appellant. We find no force in the contention. Admittedly, the appell

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