On that date, succession to Banarsi Das opened and the land came to be inherited by the appellants as also their mother who has since died.
Dropadi Devi who being the small farmers were entitled to an exemption of their land from the surplus pool.
It was this statutory provision which was sought to be invoked by the appellants who companytended that the surplus area, on the death of the original owner, namely Banarsi Das, was inherited by the and, therefore, it companyld number be utilised in any was, number even by allotment of this area in favour of Mangat Ram, which was liable to be cancelled, but they lost before all the authorities and have ultimately landed in this Court.
An area of 137 Kanals 8 Marlas of land was declared as surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as the Punjab Act , which was later replaced by the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Haryana Act .
332 that this land was allotted to the respondents father Mangat Ram.
It is also companytended that since the provisions companytained in the Punjab Act and the Rules framed thereunder with regard to the utilisation of surplus area were number companyplied with, the land in question shall number be deemed to have been utilised.
Aggrieved by this order, the present appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, who, by his order dated 26.9.1984 dismissed the appeal.
Banarsi Das died on 12th January, 1971 leaving behind Smt.
The proceedings remanded to Collector, Karnal were ultimately decided by him on 17.8.1992.
This judgment was challenged by the appellants in an appeal filed before the Commissioner, Ambala Division but the appeal was dismissed on 20.1.1993.
The application of the present appellants for releasing the land from the surplus pool was rejected and the allotment order passed in favour of Mangat Ram was upheld.
Banarasi Das, father of the appellants, was the owner of companysiderable land in Village Kanthal Kalan, Dera Kalan, Dera Khurd, District Kurukshetra, Haryana.
Consequently, S.D.O. Civil , by his order dated 30.11.1972, exempted the land held by the appellants and Smt.
Mangat Ram challenged the order in appeal before the Collector, Karnal, who, by his order dated 8.8.1983 allowed the appeal and remanded the case to Collector Agrarian for a fresh decision.
Since each of them got land which was less than 30 standard acres and since the land in question had number been utilised, they gave an application under Section 10A b of the Punjab Act, that their land may be taken out of the surplus pool.
Dropadi Devi wife and the present appellants daughters , as his heirs, who inherited the property left by him.
Every tenant resettled on the surplus area shall be bound to take possession of the land allotted to him within a period of two months of the date on which demarcation of the land is made at site in his presence or within such extended period, as may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, be allowed by the Circle Revenue officer.
This application, which was filed before the Collector Agrarian , Karnal, on 4.7.1972 was registered as Case No.
The possession of the land shall be delivered to the tenant by the Circle Revenue Officer himself.
It was found by the Collector that an area of 40 Kanals 16 Marlas had already been allotted to Mangat Ram on 21.2.1964 and possession over the allotted land was also delivered to him on 17.3.1964.
The land, after the death of Bansarsi Das, was inherited by the appellants and since inheritance is saved under Section 10 A b of the Punjab Act, the area which companystituted the land of the appellants was liable to be excluded from surplus area or there has to be re determination of surplus area under the Haryana Act as succession had opened on 12.1.1971 on the death of Banarsi Das, that is, ten days before 24.1.1971, which is the relevant date under that Act and the land devolved upon them by inheritance.
or any officer authorised by it may utilise any surplus area for the resettlement of tenants ejected or to be ejected under clause 1 of sub section 1 of Section 9.
On 16.12.1977, the appellants gave an application to the Collector for cancellation of the allotment order made in favour of Mangat Ram on 13.7.1976, which was registered as Case No.
The further implication of this Section is that if the surplus area, in the meantime, is acquired by the State Govt.
This case was decided on 13.6.1978 by the Collector Agrarian , Karnal, and the allotment made in favour of Mangat Ram was cancelled on the ground that the land had number been utilised and had already been exempted from the surplus pool as indicated by the D.O. in his order dated 30.11.1972.
It was found that since the surplus land had already been utilised before the death of Bansarsi Das, there was numberoccasion to cancel the allotment made in favour of Mangat Ram in 1964.
This fact was also admitted by the appellants in 1972 and 1977 when they requested the Collector Agrarian to cancel the allotment.
Leave granted.
2441/Agr.,
under any law for the time being of force, or it passes to an heir by inheritance, the surplus area so acquired or inherited would number be available for utilisation.
The appellants then filed a Revision before the Financial Commissioner, but the Revision was dismissed on 28.2.1990.
Dropadi Devi, who has since died, from the surplus pool.
which came ultimately to the companyrt of D.O. Civil , Karnal for decision, During the companyrse of the proceedings, report of the Patwari, Teja Singh, dated 21.9.1972 and that of the Naib Tehsildar, Tarif Singh, of the same date, were placed on record which were to the effect that on the surplus lands of Banarsi Das, numbertenant had been re settled.
