TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 525X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate separately after 1st of November, 1966. If so, whether an order declaring the area to be surplus passed prior to the date above said, but which order has not been implemented and the surplus land so declared has not in fact been utilised would continue to have effect after said date? Now the facts. Balwant Singh was displaced person from West Pakistan. He owned in all 67 standard acres of land distributed in various villages. According to him he had sold some properties to strangers and the remaining in favour of his wife and minor son in 1957. On 8th November, 1960, when proceedings under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1930 (for short the Act) were initiated, the Special Collector, Punjab, declared 29 standard acres b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... belonged to him fell within the new State of Punjab and the new State of Haryana. 3. The matter came before learned Single Judge. The following questions were raised before him: (1) That after the States Re-organisation, persons owning lands both in the State of Punjab and Haryana could claim that they should be allowed permissible area in both the States separately, (2) that orders passed regarding surplus area prior to 1st November, 1986, and which area had not been utilised till then, should be deemed to have no effect and (3) that the proceedings declaring surplus land were bad for want of notice to the transferees. These contentions were repelled by the learned Single Judge. 4. He took the matter in appeal. The Div ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us not utilized. 7. The question that fell to be decided by the full Bench was whether the order which had become final would continue to have effect after the date of enforcement of the Re-organisation Act when that order had not been given effect to and the surplus area had not teen utilised by the Government. 8. Under the Scheme of the Act, it is the entire holding a person on 15th April, 1953, that is to be taken into consideration for determining his surplus area. The Government acquires the right to utilize the surplus area of a person against whom an order of declaration has been made for the resettlement of tenants ejected or to be ejected. Sections 9(1) (i) and 10A(a), which read as follows, make the position clear: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here any provision enabling the owner of the land to claim back the land and to get it restored to him if utilization is not made by the Government within a specified period. All that the Act contains by way of exception is what is seen in Section 10A(b). If at the time of the commencement of the Act, the land is acquired by the Government under the relevant acquisition laws or when it is a case of inheritance, the owner could claim exclusion of such land from his land for fixation of his ceiling under the Act. The second exception itself is further fettered by the provision in Section 10-B that where succession had opened after the surplus area or any part thereof had been utilised under Section 10A(a), the saving specified in favour of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... became final, declaring the surplus area, would be given effect to and the order would be implemented uninfluenced by the division of the State. After the Re-organisation Act, the Governor of Haryana in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 89 of the Re-organisation Act passed an order by name Haryana Adaptation of Laws (State and Concurrent Subjects) Order, 1968, on 23-10-1968 making it to take effect retrospectively from November, 1966. Clauses 10 to 11 of the order reads as follows: 10. The provisions of this order which adapt or modify any law so as to alter the manner in which, the authority by which, or the law under or in accordance with which any paves are exercisable shall not render invalid any notification, order, l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that the land belonging to a particular owner, under fortuitous circumstances, fall in the two newly formed States, will not in any way affect the operation of the orders which had become final prior to 1st November, 1966. To accept the Appellant's contention would create anomalies. Persons against whom proceedings under the Act were taken and became final prior to 1st November, 1966, would be entitled to claim lands in both the States while those whose petitions are pending on the date the States Re-organisation Act came into force would be in a disadvantageous position. This is not the object of the Act. Nor the scheme behind it. The States Re-organisation was a historical accident. The land owners cannot take advantage of this acci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
