PETITIONER:
SANTRAM
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF HARYANA
DATE OF JUDGMENT30/11/1994
BENCH:
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We find that in the present case, the High Court was
not justified in interfering with the order of the learned
Sessions Judge cancelling the bail of the respondent-
accused. The learned Sessions Judge had given cogent
reasons for passing the order in question by pointing out
that the accused had threatened the material witnesses in
question including the complainant, on two occasions.. On
the first occasion, an application was filed for
cancellation of their bail. It was, however, rejected.
Within another few days a second attempt was made to
threaten the witnesses. That was inquired into both by the
Station House Officer as well as by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police. They found substance in the
complaints. Hence it was the State which moved the Court
for cancellation of the bail relying upon the verified
report of the police officers. The learned Sessions Judge
took into consideration all the relevant facts and came to
the
Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2433 of 1993
206
conclusion that it was necessary to cancel the bail in order
to maintain a terrorfree atmosphere during the proceedings.
The High Court, while setting aside the order of the learned
Sessions Judge stated that the learned Judge was arbitrary
and had made the order of cancellation of bail without any
material being “marshalled on the record” to support the
conclusion. We are unable to appreciate this reason. A
perusal of the order of the learned Sessions Judge shows
that he has referred to all the material circumstances on
record and has come to his conclusion in question. We,
therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court
and maintain the order of the Sessions Judge dated 26-11-
1992 and direct that the accused, who have already been
taken into custody, pursuant to the non-bailable warrants
issued by this Court, will remain in custody till the trial
is over.
3. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
SAMPURAN SINGH V. STATE OF HARAYANA
ORDER in C.A. No. 3397 of 1984
1.This appeal arises from the order of the Division Bench
of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, dated November 23, 1981
made in C.W.P. No. 5298 of 1981. 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
claimed that in the interregnums his three sons had become
majors and that therefore the surplus area should be
recomputed under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,
1972. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. Thus,
this appeal by special leave.
2.Shri Bansal, learned counsel for the appellant raised
two-fold contentions. Firstly he contended that since the
land, though declared surplus, having been allowed to be in
possession and enjoyment of the appellant, that is, to
remain otherwise unutilised, the appellant was entitled to
seek the reopening of his declaration in which his sons had
since become majors. Under Sections 7 and 9 of the Haryana
Act, computation of surplus land had to be done among
himself and his three sons. We find no force in this
contention. The Punjab Act while fixes 31 standard acres as
ceiling area, the Haryana Act fixes 17-1/2 standard acres as
ceiling area and permits under Section 9, the determination
of surplus land. If there was a major son living
separately, his unit could be computed separately as his
share. In that process, the surplus land is liable to
adjustment under Section 9 of Haryana Act. That does not,
however, permit the Surplus area declared Under the Punjab
Act to be adjusted by reopening and recomputation. Neither
the Haryana Act nor the Punjab Act contain any such
provision. On the other hand the provision in Section
33(2)(ii) that pending proceedings under the Punjab Act
should be completed under 1953 Act and the surplus land
would vest in the State is a clear indication to the
contrary. A Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court
in Jaswant Kaur v. State of Harvana1 interpreting Section
12(3) of Haryana Act held that the surplus land on and from
December 23, 1972 shall stand vested under Section 12(3) of
the Haryana Act in the State. In other words, from that
date the lands stand vested in the State of Haryana free
from all encumbrances, becoming available under the Haryana
Act for allotment of surplus land to the tenants and the
landless laborers for cultivation. This Court also
considered the effect of that judgment
AIR 1977 P & H 221: 1977 Punj LJ 230: ILR (1977) 2 Punj 116
209
in Jodha Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh2
and held that by operation of Section 8 read with Section 12
and also of the Punjab Act, any alienation made prior to
July 13, 1958 alone was saved and the lands remaining
undisposed of, till the date of vesting would continue to
vest in the State and the surplus landholder does not have
any right, title or interest in the land and he cannot even
seek eviction of any tenant inducted by the State into that
land. In view of these decisions, we have no hesitation to
conclude that though the surplus land was allowed to remain
in possession of the previous landholder, the title stood
vested in the State free from all encumbrances on and from
December 23, 1972. Further the mere enjoyment of surplus
land allowed by the State to the previous landholder does
not create any right in him to claim any title in such land.
Therefore, the question of fresh computation among the
appellant and his three sons, who later became majors, does
not arise.
3.It is next contended that the Act has been given
retrospective effect and it affects the vested right of the
appellant and that therefore it is ultra vires. We find no
force in the contention. It is now well settled that
legislature is competent to enact law with retrospective
effect even taking away vested rights in some cases by
allowing retrospective operation of the law. In this case
such question does not arise for the reason that by
statutory vesting of the surplus land, the preexisting
right, title and interest in the land of its holder stood
vested in the State on and from December 23, 1972. When the
constitutional validity of the provisions in the Act was
challenged, this Court by a Bench of three Judges in W.P.
Nos. 16018-21 of 1984 and other cases entitled Mukhtiar
Singh v. State of Haryana3 by judgment dated November 21,
1984 upheld their validity. Under these circumstances, we
do not find any ground warranting interference with the
order under challenge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed
but in the circumstances without costs.
ORDER in C.A. Nos. 2532-35 of 1985, 2667-69 of 1985, 2531 of
1985 and
3403 of 1984
4.These appeals are being disposed of by a common
judgment since a common question of law arises, the parties
are interrelated and the dispute relates to the same land.
These appeals arise from the judgment of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 1677 of 1985 and batch by
which a Division Bench dismissed the writ petitions of the
appellants in limine. Thus these appeals by special leave
are filed.
5.The appellants’ family had 828 standard acres of land.
Under Section 2(5) [sic 2(5-a)] of the Punjab Security of
Land Tenures Act, 1953, for short ‘the Act’ which came into
force w.e.f. April 15, 1953, the Collector took proceedings
dated June 27, 1960 and declared surplus lands concerned in
the respective appeals. That declaration became final.
Thereafter, applications were filed under Rule 8 of the
rules made under the Act seeking permission to utilise the
surplus lands by continuing in their possession on the
ground that they were cultivating the lands as a modern
farm. It is unnecessary to advert to pervious history of
the surplus lands except to state that the Special Board by
its order dated May 12, 1964 made under Rule 8 of the rules
permitted the appellants to continue to use the surplus area
after ejecting the tenants that were put in
2 (1994) 1 SCC 27
3 Writ Petition Nos. 16018-21 of 1984, decided on Nov.
21, 1984
210
possession by the Collector under East Punjab Utilisation of
Lands Act, 1949. While the appellants continued to enjoy
the surplus lands, the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,
1972 came into force w.e.f. January 24, 1971. By operation
of sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Haryana Act, the
surplus lands stood vested in the State w.e.f. December 23,
1972. The appellants filed writ petitions claiming that the
minors in the family had, after declaration of the lands as
surplus under 1953 Act, having become majors, they cannot be
regarded as surplus-holders and, therefore, they were
entitled to continue to use the lands. Those writ petitions
being dismissed, the present appeals are filed by special
leave.
6.Shri S.M. Ashri, the learned counsel for the appellants
strenuously contended that by operation of Section 9 of
Haryana Act read with the provisions of 1953 Act, the
appellants continue to remain as owners of the land though
the lands were declared surplus. He maintained that the
lands since remained undistributed among tenants and
continued in appellants’ possession and enjoyment as owners,
they were entitled to be considered under Haryana Act as
non-surplus landholders. Whether they are having lands
within the ceiling limit prescribed under Section 7 of the
Act has, therefore, to be considered and redetermined. We
find no force in the contention.
7.No doubt under 1953 Act, there is no specific provision
which provided for vesting of the surplus lands, declared
thereunder. The Collector had power to take possession of
the surplus lands and utilise them under East Punjab Area
Utilisation of Lands Act, 1949, by their allotment to the
tenants for cultivation. But for the exemption granted
under Rule 8 of the rules, the appellants had no right to
remain in possession. Having got the benefit of Rule 8 and
remained in possession of the surplus land and utilised the
same for the purpose of cultivation in a modern farm, it is
not open to appellants to contend that the land having
remained unutilised and continued to be in their possession
and enjoyment, Section 12(3) does not divest them of their
title. The language of Section 12(3) is unequivocal and
clear. According to it the surplus lands declared under the
Act stand vested in the State. Even otherwise the non-
utilisation of surplus land till date of vesting i.e. on
December 23, 1972 is not material. The object of the Act
and Section 12(3) of 1972 Act was redistribution of surplus
land among the landless ryots and agricultural labour and to
confer title on them. The Act enabled the owner of the
surplus land to recover rent from the lessee and enjoy the
income till date of vesting and no more. Section 32 of
Haryana Act admittedly declared all exemptions under Rule 8
as of no avail, w.e.f. January 24, 1971 in that it expressly
states thus:
“As from the appointed day exemption granted
in relation to the utilisation of surplus area
under korchards, tea-estates or well-run farms
by virtue of the provisions of the rules
framed or purported to have been framed under
the Punjab Law, shall stand withdrawn.”
8.Therefore, from the appointed day the possession held
by appellants of surplus lands become unlawful and entitles
the Collector or competent officer to resume possession of
them from appellants. Neither Section 12(3) nor Sections 7
and 9 of the Haryana Act empower the ceiling authority to
reopen the proceedings relating to surplus lands which had
become final is also made clear by Section 33(2)(ii)
thereof. Section 33(2)(ii) says that the surplus area
determined in the pending proceedings under the Act shall be
done under that
211
Act and surplus land shall vest in and be utilised by the
State Government in accordance with the provisions of the
1972 Act. Sub-section (2)(ii) of Section 33, no doubt,
deals with determination of surplus area pending proceeding
under the Punjab Law as on the notified date and vesting of
the surplus area so determined in the State. The
legislative in tenement, therefore, appears to be that the
surplus area declared under the Punjab Law shall remain to
be surplus. If any area that becomes surplus under the
Haryana Act since the surplus area was reduced from 31
standard acres to 17 1/2 acres, that surplus area should be
redetermined under Section 7 read with Section 9. Therein if
a son becomes major and resides separately he is entitled to
a separate unit etc. However, it does not appear that the
surplus area declared under the Punjab Law should be
reopened and recomputed under the 1972 Haryana Act. No such
express provision was engrafted in 1972 Act. Though the
family of the appellants have swelled and some of the minors
have become majors, the appellants are not entitled to have
the surplus area which had become final reopened for
recomputation under the 1972 Haryana Act. Thus considered,
we find that the High Court was fully justified in
dismissing the writ petitions. The appeals are, therefore,
dismissed, but without costs.
In SLP No. 7622 of 1982
9. Leave granted.
10.The first petitioner Tara Singh died on July 5, 1987
and his legal representatives have not been brought on
record. Therefore, the appeal stood abated, as against him.
Since the cause of action was the dismissal of the appeal
against Tara Singh that operates as against the other two
persons Pritam Singh and Jeet Singh. Therefore, the appeal
as against the other appellants also stood abated. No
costs.
In CA. No. 1657 of 1982, CA. @ SLP (C) Nos. 7175 of 1986,
3185 of 1985, 7441 of 1986, 7384 of 1986, & in W. P. Nos.
16213-16 of 1984
11.C.M.P. No. 24822 of 1982 in C.A. No. 1657 of 1982 is
allowed. Leave grantedin the S.L.Ps. The point raised in
these matters is covered by the judgmentjust now
dictated in C.A. Nos. 2532-35 of 1985, 2667-69 of 1985 and
2531 of1985. Therefore, these appeals are, as well,
dismissed. No costs.
ORDER in C.A. No. 2133 of 1984
12.The appellant was declared to have 15 standard acres as
surplus land by an order of the Collector dated December 12,
1960 made under 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
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 authorities
appear to have issued directions to restore the leased land
to the appellant. However, a simultaneous proceeding
appears to have been taken to assign the earlier declared
surplus land to landless 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
212
notice, by filing a writ petition in the High Court which
was dismissed by order dated January 3, 1994. The present
appeal by special leave is directed against that order.
13.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 appellant was declared as holder of 15
standard acres of surplus land by the order passed by the
Collector on December 12, 1960. Having allowed that order
to become final, the only course open to him was to have
carried it in appeal or to have it reopened under that Act
or under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972,
provided the law permitted reopening of the proceedings and
recomputation of the surplus holdings. That was not done.
By operation of Section 12(3) of the Haryana Act, the
surplus land stood vested in the State free from all
encumbrances on and with effect from December 23, 1972.
Jaswant Kaur v. State of Haryana1 a Full Bench Judgment
which was approved by this Court in Jodha Ram v. F.C.
Haryana2 holds that the lands stood vested in the State
absolutely effective 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 of restoring 5
acres of land to the appellant or giving notice to the
appellant, does not arise.
14.It may not be construed that the other excess land
which stood vested in the Government by operation of Section
12(3) read with the order dated December 12, 1960 would
impede any right, if the appellant had got by any subsequent
orders modifying the determination of the surplus area in
accordance with the provisions of 1953 Act. The appeal is,
therefore, dismissed but without costs.
213