- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Amar Singh And Others v. Ajmer Singh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Maru Ram, a large landowner, possessed 61 standard acres and 9 units of agricultural land when the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 came into force on 15-4-1953. A civil-court partition decree later divided this holding among Maru Ram and his three sons—Prithi Singh, Surat Singh and Ajmer Singh.
Proceedings under the Punjab Act culminated in an order dated 10-3-1961 by the Collector, Karnal, declaring 9 acres and 3-3/4 units of the family holding as surplus. A review petition filed by the sons was dismissed on 26-7-1962, and these orders became final.
The Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 took effect on 23-12-1972. Section 12(3) of that Act vested in the State all land earlier declared surplus under the Punjab Act as of the appointed day (24-1-1971). Consequently, the 9 acres and 3-3/4 units automatically vested in the State of Haryana and, in 1981, were allotted to the present appellant and two others. Ajmer Singh was dispossessed.
Ajmer Singh challenged the allotment through multiple proceedings: a revision before the Collector, Kurukshetra (dismissed 26-5-1982), an application to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Thanesar (dismissed), and finally a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. A learned Single Judge allowed the writ and quashed the allotment, relying on Jaswant Kaur v. State of Haryana. A Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed in limine. The State’s allottee appealed to the Supreme Court, resulting in the present decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether surplus land validly declared under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act in 1961/1962 could be reopened or ignored after the coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.
- Whether continued possession of the surplus land by Ajmer Singh until 1981 affected the vesting of that land in the State under Section 12(3) of the Haryana Act.
- Whether the High Court correctly applied the Full Bench decision in Jaswant Kaur v. State of Haryana to quash the allotment.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent (Ajmer Singh)
- Although surplus proceedings were finalised in 1961/1962, the respondent remained in possession until 1981; therefore the land had not effectively vested in the State and the subsequent allotment was unlawful.
The opinion does not set out detailed arguments advanced by the appellant.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Jaswant Kaur v. State of Haryana, 1977 Pun LJ 230; AIR 1977 P&H 221 (P&H Full Bench) | Interpretation of surplus land provisions under Punjab/Haryana ceiling laws | Held inapplicable; Supreme Court stated it was “not even remotely relevant” to facts where surplus had been finally determined in 1961/1962. |
| Bhagwanti Devi v. State of Haryana, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 101; (1994) 1 Scale 861 | Surplus land automatically vests in the State on the appointed day under Section 12(3) of the Haryana Act, regardless of possession/non-utilisation | Cited to reinforce that mere non-utilisation or continued possession by the ex-landowner does not affect vesting. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court identified a fundamental error in the High Court’s reliance on Jaswant Kaur. It emphasised that:
- The surplus proceedings under the Punjab Act were concluded and attained finality in 1961/1962. Neither the Haryana Act nor any other provision allows reopening those determinations.
- Section 12(3) of the Haryana Act clearly provides that all land earlier declared surplus “shall be deemed to have vested in the State Government” on 24-1-1971. The language is “unequivocal and clear.”
- Physical possession by Ajmer Singh until 1981, or the State’s non-utilisation of the land before that date, is legally irrelevant once vesting has occurred.
- The Single Judge proceeded on “wholly erroneous assumptions,” and the Letters Patent Bench dismissed the appeal “mechanically.”
- The position adopted by the Court aligns with its own precedent in Bhagwanti Devi, confirming that vesting is automatic and not contingent on possession.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; High Court judgments dated 23-9-1987 and 3-11-1987 set aside. Civil Writ Petition No. 163 of 1986 dismissed.
As a direct consequence, the 9 acres and 3-3/4 units remain vested in the State and the allotment to the appellant stands restored. Ajmer Singh is liable to pay costs quantified at Rs 11,000. The decision reiterates that surplus land declared under the Punjab Act cannot be re-litigated after vesting under Section 12(3) of the Haryana Act; however, it does not set out a new legal principle beyond affirming existing statutory interpretation.
Kuldip Singh, J.— Maru Ram (deceased), father of Ajmer Singh, respondent in the appeal herein, was a big landowner. The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (Punjab Act) came into force with effect from 15-4-1953. On that date Maru Ram owned 61 standard acres 9 units of land. It was stated that there was a partition decree by the civil court on the basis of which the holding of Maru Ram was partitioned amongst him and his three sons namely Prithi Singh, Surat Singh and Ajmer Singh. Proceedings under the Punjab Act were initiated and 9 acres and 3-3/4 units of land owned and possessed by Maru Ram was declared surplus by the Collector, Karnal, on 10-3-1961. The Collector, Karnal, took into consideration the partition decree and all other material placed before the Collector. Against the order dated 10-3-1961, the three sons of Maru Ram filed a review petition which was heard by the Collector, Karnal on merits and was dismissed by his order dated 26-7-1962. It is not disputed before us by the learned counsel appearing for Ajmer Singh-respondent that the orders dated 10-3-1961 and 26-7-1962 have achieved finality.
2. The Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (Haryana Act) came into force with effect from 23-12-1972. The provisions of the Punjab Act which were inconsistent with the provisions of the Haryana Act were repealed by Section 33 of the Haryana Act. Section 12(3) of the Haryana Act which is relevant is reproduced hereunder:
“12. (3) The area declared surplus or tenant's permissible area under the Punjab law and the area declared surplus under the Pepsu law, which has not so far vested in the State Government, shall be deemed to have vested in the State Government with effect from the appointed day and the area which may be so declared under the Punjab law or the Pepsu law after the appointed day shall be deemed to have vested in the State Government with effect from the date of such declaration.”
3. It is clear from the language of Section 12(3) of the Haryana Act that the surplus land declared under the Punjab Act stood vested in the State with effect from the appointed day (24-1-1971). 9 acres and 3-3/4 units of land belonging to late Maru Ram and his sons which was declared surplus in the year 1961/1962 also stood vested in the State of Haryana in terms of Section 12(3) of the Haryana Act. The said land having vested in the State Government was allotted to the appellant and Respondents 3 and 4 in the year 1981. Ajmer Singh-respondent, was dispossessed from the land and the possession was handed over to the appellant. Ajmer Singh-respondent, challenged the allotment made to the appellant by way of a revision petition before Collector, Kurukshetra. The Collector by his order dated 26-5-1982 dismissed the petition. The Collector came to the conclusion that the surplus proceedings against Maru Ram and his sons having achieved finality in the year 1961/1962 under the Punjab Act, the same could not be reopened. Ajmer Singh moved another application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Thanesar for the correction of the revenue record. The said application was made on the basis of the partition decree of the civil court dated 16-6-1958. The Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the application on the ground that the decree of the civil court was taken into consideration by the Collector, Karnal while determining the surplus area under the Punjab Act in the year 1961/1962. Thereafter, Ajmer Singh filed writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the competent authority allotting the land to the appellant. The High Court relied upon the Full Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jaswant Kaur v. State of Haryana 1977 Pun LJ 230, AIR 1977 P&H 221.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The High Court fell into patent error in allowing the writ petition on the basis of the ratio in Jaswant Kaur case 1977 Pun LJ 230, AIR 1977 P&H 221. The said case is not even remotely relevant to the facts of the present case. The learned Judge failed to appreciate that in the present case the surplus proceedings under the Punjab Act had been finalised as back as 1961/1962. There is no provision under the Haryana Act to reopen the surplus determined under the Punjab Act. Based on wholly erroneous assumptions the learned Judge allowed the writ petition. The Letters Patent Bench of the High Court mechanically dismissed the appeal in limine.
5. Learned counsel for Ajmer Singh-respondent, has contended that although the surplus proceedings against Maru Ram was finalised in the year 1961/1962 but the possession of the surplus land remained with Ajmer Singh, respondent, till 1981 when the same was handed over to the appellant. Simply because the surplus land declared under the Punjab Act was not utilised and it remained in possession of Ajmer Singh-respondent would not make any difference so far as the position in law is concerned. The language of Section 12(3) is unequivocal and clear. According to it the surplus land declared under the Punjab Act stood vested in the State. The non-utilisation of surplus land till the date of vesting (23-12-1972) is of no consequence and makes no difference. The view we have taken is supported by the judgment of this Court in Bhagwanti Devi v. State of Haryana 1994 Supp (3) SCC 101 (2), (1994) 1 Scale 861 (SC). We therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 23-9-1987 and also the order of the Letters Patent Bench dated 3-11-1987. Civil Writ Petition No. 163 of 1986 filed by Ajmer Singh in the High Court stands dismissed. The appellant shall be entitled to his cost which we quantify as Rs 11,000. Costs to be paid by respondent-Ajmer Singh.
Alert