1. Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972) S. 8, 11 - Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 (10 of 1953) - Surplus land - State had not utilized the property and succession had opened - Haryana Act does not promote redistribution and adjustment of unutilized surplus declared under the Punjab Law, merely because the possession remained with the land owner and they were allowed to cultivate the same till its utilization and enforcement of the Haryana Act. (175) P.L.R.  
  2. Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972) S. 9 - Mistake in the date of birth was pointed out by the owner not after the order of the State authorities making a declaration under the Act vesting the property in the State - It was given by the landowner even before the order was passed by the Collector acting on the declaration made under Section 9 of the Act - The assessment of age is surely only a question of fact - The authorities above, it is only because the authorities were not prepared to examine the correctness of the date of birth at all - Was grossly unjust - State is directed to make a declaration on such a basis.  (176) P.L.R.  
  3. Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972) - Haryana Utilization of Surplus Areas Scheme of 1976 - A partition before 30.07.1954 will not make a difference of vesting of the surplus area in the State - Question of whether a partition decree before 30.07.1954 will render an exclusion of the acquisition/vesting in favour of the State by operation of Section 8 of the Haryana Land Ceiling law is indeed a moot point that was not dealt with by the Supreme Court - It may do so in future but judicial discipline demands that I follow the Division Bench decision in Janga's case, (2003-4)R.C.R. (Civil) 811]  and the Supreme Court decisions in Bhagwanti Devi, [1994 Supp.(3) S.C.C. 101] and Amar Singh, [(1994-3)108 P.L.R. 433 as directly covering the issue at hand - Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953). (173) P.L.R.  
  4. Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972) - Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953) - Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (13 of 1955) - If declaration itself has not become complete and final by pendency of proceedings, then the authority has to take note of the events such as, succession, transfer or anyone of the members becoming major for consideration of a fresh reckoning - The order rejecting a claim of the son to seek for a separate unit is erroneous - It is quashed. (176) P.L.R.  
  5. Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972) S.  5(A) - Smadh - If the Samadh was to be taken as religious place of public nature, it would be exempted from the operation of the Act, as provided under Section 5(A) of the Act - If it was to be treated as a private Samadh, then it would be the private property of the petitioners and they would be entitled for the protection available under the Act - Neither the Samadh of the petitioners was a religious place of public nature nor it was a charitable institution - It was a private property of the petitioners - Admittedly, the Samadh in question was not a registered body - At the most, it could be said to be only a part of family affairs of the petitioners - Thus, the Samadh in question, in either of the two situations discussed hereinabove, was beyond the scope of the Act. Pritam Dass (Dead) Through Its His Lrs.  V. State of Haryana. (173) P.L.R.  
  6. Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972) S.  8, 12, 13 - Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953) S. 10(A), 10(B) - Land stood transferred in favour of the sons by a `Tamliknama" in 1954 thereby precluding its vesting in the State - All transfers prior to 1958 were protected - There was no challenge to this `Tamliknama" to say that it was a fraudulent exercise. (182) P.L.R.
  7. Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972) S.  8 - Sets  out the circumstances when certain transfers and dispositions would not effect the surplus area and carves out an exceptional situation when a property was held by an heir by inheritance and to certain transfers in excess of the surplus land before specified date under the said section - Since in these cases, before declaration was made and completion of selection, death had taken place resulting in survival of interest by inheritance, the proceedings could carry on only after receiving returns from heirs of the respective deceased - That was precisely the orders that were contemplated by the prescribed authority. (176) P.L.R.  
  8. Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972) S.  9 - Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972  (10 of 1973) - Harmonious reading of Sections 8 and 12 with Section 9 would only mean that the vesting will be kept in abeyance, if the proceedings for declaration under Section 9 are still not completed - The Act has series of procedures at various stages before when the vesting could take - Legal heirs shall be entitled to make their own declaration in the manner contemplated under Section 9 and the authority will take appropriate adjudication of such declaration made for determination of the permissible area of the parties. (176) P.L.R.  
  9. Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972) S. 12 - Review was sought on the ground that the exemption from computation of holdings that were available to banjar qadim, Jadid, and gair mumkin had all been computed within the holdings and consequently, assessment of total holdings of the landowner had been wrongly made - Provision sets out the manner of vesting of surplus area and it details the fact that the surplus area of a landowner shall be, from the date from which it was declared as such, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government for public purpose - Neither a sale nor succession could operate to stultify a vesting that took place under Section 12 of the Haryana Act - There is no scope for a State to undertake a review.  (175) P.L.R.  
  10. Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972) S. 12(1) - Expropriatory legislation such as land ceiling land by the very nature of things ought to take only as prospective - If there had been retrospective application, the statute itself ought to provide for the same - Retrospectively of the Act is, therefore, specifically provided under Section 12(3) only in relation to the property that was declared as surplus under any one of the two laws. (176) P.L.R.  
  11. Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972) S. 18(6) - Financial Commissioner was not competent to summon the Patwari Halka and record his evidence - In fact, this procedure adopted by the Financial Commissioner was unknown to law and beyond the scope of the Act.  Pritam Dass (Dead) Through Its His Lrs.  V. State of Haryana. (173) P.L.R.  
  12. Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972) S. 18(6) - Since  the statutory remedy of appeal and revision are provided under Section 18 itself, it would always be obligatory on the part of the aggrieved party, to avail the statutory remedy, before invoking the suo-moto powers under Section 18(6) of the Act - If the statutory remedy is not availed, the party shall show as to why the remedy of appeal and/or revision could not be availed at the appropriate time, despite exercise of due diligence in that regard - A reasonable explanation for not availing the remedy of appeal and/or revision on behalf of the aggrieved party, would be the relevant factor for invoking and exercising the suo-moto powers under Section 18(6) of the Act - No such explanation is available on the record of the case. Pritam Dass (Dead) Through Its His Lrs.  V. State of Haryana. (173) P.L.R.  
  13. Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972) S. 18(6) - State preferred revision before the Financial Commissioner after a lapse of 13 years after passing of order by the Prescribed Authority, which was considered under Section 18(6) of the Act invoking suo-motu power - Suo motu power having been exercised by the Financial Commissioner after 13 years of passing of order by the Prescribed Authority, the same cannot be said to be reasonable and legally sustainable.  (183) P.L.R.
  14. Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972) S. 18(6) - Words "at any time" used in Section 18(6) of the Act would never mean an indefinite period - It has to be a reasonable period - That seems to be the only harmonious construction and purposeful interpretation - Any contrary interpretation would run counter to the established principles of interpretation - Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the words "at any time" would mean only a reasonable time and not an indefinite period. Pritam Dass (Dead) Through Its His Lrs.  V. State of Haryana. (173) P.L.R.  
  15. Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 S. 18(6) - No doubt, Section 18(6) of the Act uses the expression `at any time' but it cannot be indefinite time. (173) P.L.R.