Jiwas Das (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
property - surplus land - tenancy and land laws, section 33 (2) of haryana ceiling on land holdings act, 1972, section2 (5) of punjab security of land tenures act, 1953 and statute law - certain land declared by collector to be surplus land - in writ petition against collector's action high court had passed certain orders - proceedings initiated after 14 years - meantime haryana land holdings act came into force which provided that all proceedings for determination of surplus land prior to commencement of act shall be continued as if it was under new act - proceedings sought to be quashed - high court had directed determination of surplus land in accordance with a judicial precedent - high court's order has to be given full effect - appeal dismissed. - - we have perused the different orders passed by the authorities concerned as well as the order passed by the high court.order1. this appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant for setting aside the different orders passed by the commissioner, financial commissioner and the high court in connection with land ceiling case.2. it appears that proceeding for fixation of the ceiling was initiated against the original landholder on 27-7-1959 under the punjab security of land tenures act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the act), in that proceeding on 19-10-1959 an order was passed by the collector, declaring 23 standard acres and 7 1/2 units as surplus. the appeal filed on behalf of the original landholder was dismissed on 20-5-1960. however, the writ petition filed before the high court was allowed on 15-12-1961. while allowing the writ petition, the high court said:'the counsel for the parties are agreed that this writ should be allowed and the impugned order quashed leaving it to the department concerned to determine the matter in the light of legal position as laid down by a db of this court in jagan nath v. state of punjab, cw no. 1051 of 1960, decided on 13-11-1961. i accordingly allow the writ petition and quashing the impugned order direct that matter may be determined by the department concerned according to the law laid down in the above decision. no costs.'3. for about 14 years no steps were taken in terms of the direction given by the high court by the respondent-state. on 11-6-1975 steps were taken to proceed with the case aforesaid which was challenged by the original landholder saying that as the original order had been quashed by the high court the same proceeding cannot be continued after a lapse of 14 years. this claim was rejected by the commissioner, financial commissioner and the high court. the original landholder had filed this appeal but he is now dead and his heirs have been substituted.4. it may be mentioned that in the meantime the haryana land holdings act has come into force, section 33(2)(i) of the said act provides that proceedings for determination of the surplus area pending immediately before the commencement of the said act meaning thereby the punjab security of land tenures act, 1953, shall be continued and disposed of as if haryana ceiling on land holdings act, 1972 had not been passed. in view of the aforesaid section 33(2)(i) if the proceeding which had been initiated on 27-7-1959 and was pending when the haryana ceiling on land holdings act, 1972 came into force, that proceeding has to be continued in accordance with the old act.5. on behalf of the appellant it was urged that once the order dated 19-10-1959 declaring surplus land was quashed the proceeding came to an end and nothing was pending which can be continued. it is difficult to accept this contention. the order of the high court dated 15-12-1961 which quashed the aforesaid order also directed the department concerned to determine the question of surplus land according to the law laid down in the case of jagan nath v. state of punjab (supra).6. in this background, the order of the high court has to be given full effect and the respondents are justified in determining the question of surplus in the light of the direction of the high court.7. the appeal is accordingly dismissed. no costs. civil appeals nos. 5470-5471 of 1993 8. heard learned counsel for the parties. we have perused the different orders passed by the authorities concerned as well as the order passed by the high court. we find no ground to interfere with the impugned orders.9. the appeals are accordingly dismissed. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant for setting aside the different orders passed by the Commissioner, Financial Commissioner and the High Court in connection with land ceiling case.

2. It appears that proceeding for fixation of the ceiling was initiated against the original landholder on 27-7-1959 under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), In that proceeding on 19-10-1959 an order was passed by the Collector, declaring 23 standard acres and 7 1/2 units as surplus. The appeal filed on behalf of the original landholder was dismissed on 20-5-1960. However, the writ petition filed before the High Court was allowed on 15-12-1961. While allowing the writ petition, the High Court said:

'The counsel for the parties are agreed that this writ should be allowed and the impugned order quashed leaving it to the department concerned to determine the matter in the light of legal position as laid down by a DB of this Court in Jagan Nath v. State of Punjab, CW No. 1051 of 1960, decided on 13-11-1961. I accordingly allow the writ petition and quashing the impugned order direct that matter may be determined by the department concerned according to the law laid down in the above decision. No costs.'

3. For about 14 years no steps were taken in terms of the direction given by the High Court by the respondent-State. On 11-6-1975 steps were taken to proceed with the case aforesaid which was challenged by the original landholder saying that as the original order had been quashed by the High Court the same proceeding cannot be continued after a lapse of 14 years. This claim was rejected by the Commissioner, Financial Commissioner and the High Court. The original landholder had filed this appeal but he is now dead and his heirs have been substituted.

4. It may be mentioned that in the meantime the Haryana Land Holdings Act has come into force, Section 33(2)(i) of the said Act provides that proceedings for determination of the surplus area pending immediately before the commencement of the said Act meaning thereby the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, shall be continued and disposed of as if Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 had not been passed. In view of the aforesaid Section 33(2)(i) if the proceeding which had been initiated on 27-7-1959 and was pending when the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 came into force, that proceeding has to be continued in accordance with the old Act.

5. On behalf of the appellant it was urged that once the order dated 19-10-1959 declaring surplus land was quashed the proceeding came to an end and nothing was pending which can be continued. It is difficult to accept this contention. The order of the High Court dated 15-12-1961 which quashed the aforesaid order also directed the department concerned to determine the question of surplus land according to the law laid down in the case of Jagan Nath v. State of Punjab (Supra).

6. In this background, the order of the High Court has to be given full effect and the respondents are justified in determining the question of surplus in the light of the direction of the High Court.

7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Civil Appeals Nos. 5470-5471 of 1993

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. We have perused the different orders passed by the authorities concerned as well as the order passed by the High Court. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned orders.

9. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.