Land Declared Surplus Must Be Separated and Identified Before Utilization' in Land Holdings Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court

High Court mandates completion of proceedings under 1953 and 1972 Acts before State can utilize surplus land in dispute involving Inder Singh’s holdings

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a significant ruling in a land dispute case involving surplus land holdings. The judgment, delivered by Justice Deepak Gupta, emphasized that land declared as surplus must be properly separated and identified before the State can take possession or utilize it. This decision underscores the importance of completing legal formalities under both the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.

The case centers around the holdings of Inder Singh, who owned a substantial amount of land, which was subject to surplus declaration under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. Inder Singh's daughter, Reshami Devi, received a portion of this land through a civil court decree. However, due to ongoing legal proceedings, the land declared as surplus has not been utilized or allocated to eligible tenants. The State's failure to separate and identify the surplus land has led to prolonged legal disputes.

Justice Deepak Gupta highlighted the necessity of completing the legal procedures under both the 1953 and 1972 Acts. "It is crucial that the proceedings under the 1953 Act are finalized before any action is taken under the 1972 Act," noted the court. This includes separating and identifying the surplus land to ensure that all legal requirements are met.

The court observed that the holdings of Inder Singh and his co-sharers, including his daughter, remain joint. "The permissible area and surplus area of the plaintiff have not been separated and identified till date," the court pointed out. This lack of separation prevents the State from utilizing the declared surplus area.

Justice Gupta elaborated on the necessity of adhering to Section 14 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, which mandates the separation of surplus land from joint holdings. The court referenced multiple precedents to support its decision, including Kirpal Singh vs. Kamla Devi and State of Haryana vs. Vinod Kumar. "Surplus land does not automatically vest in the State; a legal order declaring said land as surplus is required," the judgment emphasized.

Justice Gupta remarked, "The defendants have to first complete proceedings under the 1953 Act regarding the declaration of the land as surplus pertaining to Inder Singh. It is only thereafter that land of the plaintiff is to be declared as surplus or permissible as per the 1972 Act." This statement underscores the court's insistence on completing the necessary legal steps before any further action.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court's ruling in this case reinforces the importance of following legal procedures in land disputes involving surplus declarations. By mandating the completion of proceedings under both the 1953 and 1972 Acts, the court has ensured that landowners' rights are protected until all legal formalities are fulfilled. This judgment is expected to have significant implications for similar cases, highlighting the judiciary's role in upholding procedural integrity in land tenure disputes.

Date of Decision: 27.05.2024

Reshami Devi v. State of Haryana and another