Mandir Sita Mai vs The Deputy Commissioner, Karnal
2022 Latest Caselaw 10903 P&H

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH

Sr. No. 113
                                                     CWP-19049-2022 (O&M)
                                                    Date of decision : 09.09.2022

Mandir Sita Mai                                                  ..... Petitioner


                                          VERSUS


The Deputy Commissioner, Karnal                                 ..... Respondent

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL

Present:      Mr. R.D. Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioner.

                                           *****
SUDHIR MITTAL, J. (Oral)

This writ petition has been filed by the Mandir seeking quashing

of order dated 02.12.2021/07.12.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner,

Karnal. Vide the said order, applications filed by the Mandir requesting the

Deputy Commissioner to file applications for collection of rent from the tenants

have been rejected on the ground that the Management having been handed

over to the newly constituted Committee comprised of inhabitants of village

Sita Mai, he is no longer competent to act in the matter. The Managing

Committee may take steps to collect the rent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the observation

aforementioned is only regarding the land allotted to the Mandir as permissible

area. The land which has been declared surplus and has not been allotted to

anybody, is also in possession of the State Government through tenants and the

application was in respect of the said land as well. The Deputy Commissioner

has ignored this huge chunk of land measuring about 2300 kanals. The

petitioner had filed application under Section 14 of the Punjab Security of Land

Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Punjab Act) seeking eviction 1 of 3

of the tenants for non-payment of rent. The applications were rejected by the

Assistant Collector, First Grade finding that there is no relationship of landlord

and tenant between the parties as the land had been declared surplus. This

order was reversed in an appeal filed before the Collector and the matter was

remanded for a fresh decision. Revision filed before the Commissioner failed

and finally, the Financial Commissioner was approached who passed order

dated 12.07.1989 holding that the petitioner was entitled to payment of rent

until the land had been utilized by the State Government by way of allotment to

the persons entitled in view of Jodha Ram (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Financial

Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and others, 1994 P.L.J 28. This

judgment was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court as writ petition filed

there-against was dismissed vide order dated 26.10.1999 passed in

CWP-14889-1999. Thus, the petitioner was entitled to payment of rent in

respect of surplus land also and this aspect of the case has been ignored by the

Deputy Commissioner.

With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I

have read the judgment in Jodha Ram (supra). In the said case, the Supreme

Court has held that under the Punjab Act, there is no provision of vesting of

surplus area and thus, the landlord continues to hold title to the surplus land

until and unless it is allotted to an eligible person. In the instant case, land was

declared surplus under the Punjab Act vide order dated 21.12.1964. Thereafter,

the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holding Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the

1972 Act) has come into force and Section 12 (3) thereof clearly states that land

declared surplus under the Punjab Act vests in the State with effect from the

appointed day i.e. 24.01.1971. Thus, the surplus land of the petitioner has

vested in the State of Haryana with effect from the appointed day.

2 of 3

Applications for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent were

admittedly filed after coming into force Haryana Act and the petitioner cannot

draw any benefit of any observations made by the Financial Commissioner.

The said authority has failed to take into consideration the coming into force of

the 1972 Act and the effect thereof. The order of the Division Bench with

utmost respect cannot be considered to be a precedent as the order of the

Financial Commissioner has been upheld by passing a short order dismissing

the writ petition. All that has been said therein, is that the surplus land having

vested in the State Government, the order of the Financial Commissioner does

not demand any interference.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

order of declaration of surplus area has not become final as writ petitions

challenging the same are pending in this Court.

Accordingly, it is clarified that in case, the writ petitions filed by

the petitioner are allowed, it would be at liberty to collect rent from the tenants

with effect from the date of filing of the application subject matter of the

present writ petition.

With the aforementioned observations, the writ petition is dismissed.

                                                                (SUDHIR MITTAL)
                                                                    JUDGE
09.09.2022
Ramandeep Singh


Whether speaking / reasoned                                         Yes / No
Whether Reportable                                                  Yes/ No




                                     3 of 3