Section 27

Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.

P0"/ER TO MAKE RULES. - The State Government may be notification irk the official Gazette make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. 28..REP,EAL- AND SAVINGS. - The Punjab Tenants (Security of Tenure) Act' 1950 (Act XII of and e Punjab Tenants (Security of Tenures) Amendmen Act, 1951, President's Act (V of 1951), are hereby repealed but, notwithstanding such repeal and notwithstanding the expiry of the Prevention of Ejectmen (Temporary Powers) Ordinance, 1952, anything done or any action taken in th exercise of any power conferred by or under the Acts or the said Ordinance the extent of its being consistent with the provision of this Act, shall be deemed to been done or taken in - exercise of the powers conferred by or under this Act, as if this Act was In force on the day on which such thing was done or action taken. r. LATEST,_IMPORTANT AND SELECTED CASE LAW Punjab Land Reforms Act 1972—Surplus Area—Permissible area— Admittedly, the land purchased by the petitioners was out of area which was declared surplus under the old Act—The said area could TioihaVe been sold after the appointed date i.e. 24.1.1971—The said surplus vested in the State under the provisions of the 1972 Act andwas'accordingly allotted to the contesting respondents—Allotment in'favour of contesting respondents has not been set aside—No right could be acquired by the petitioners in respect of area which was vested in the State and was allotted to the contesting respondents— LPA diamissed. ; Pritam Kaur v. State of Punjab : 2009(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) (DB) 9 Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, Sections 12(3) and 8(1)(a)—Haryana . Utilisation of Surplus and other Areas Scheme, 1976—Land declared surplus under Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act—Surplus land would automatically vest in State of Haryana on coming into force Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 with effect from 24-1-1971 by virtue of Section 12(3) of Haryana Ceiling Atf-,. 1972—Vesting of surplus Area—Authority would be free to utilize the land under the scheme, 1976. ; Megh Raj and others v. 'Mariphool and others : 2009(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 386 Civil, Procedure Code, 1908, Order 23, Rule 1(4) (b)—Withdrawal of earlier suit without permission of Court—The plaintiff filed. suit for possession on the basis of title—Defendants in that suit took stand that were mortgagees—The plaintiffs withdrew that suit to enable them to file redemption application before the Collector—Redemption application dismissed by the Collectdr—Plaintiff filed present suit for poSSessiOn within one year—Plaintiffs got afresh cause of action after, the 'decision of Collector—Held; Thus it cannot be said that the plaintiffs debarred from filing the present suit in view of the fact that the earlier. suit filed by them was dismissed as withdrawn without pelfniisiOn to fife fresh one on the same cause of action. ; Gurdeep Sif v.D(epraa HG) 3o7s6sian : 2008 (3) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 23, Rule 1—Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887--Civil- Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for posaession of the agric...!tural land as the suit for eviction of a it THE PUDLAB SECURITY OF LAND TENURE AC1, 1953 2 3 THE PUNJAB SEC. RITY OF LAND TENURE ACT, 1953 provisions said that surplus area had been finally determined—Contention of the Punjab Tenancy Low read with Punjab Security of lessee/tenant can be filed only before the Revenue Court under the REPORTER (P&H) (FB) 61 upheld. ;Sardara Singh v. Financial Commissioner Land Tenure Act, 1953—The provisions of the those Acts are ALL INDIA LAND LAW:, : 2008(2) applicable only in case the landlord wants to eject the tenant from the.. Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, Section 8(1) (a), 12(3) agricultural land—There is no evidence that the defendants are .and Section 26—Haryana Utilisation of Surplus and other Areas tenants on the suit land—Once it has been found that they are not the Scheme 1976—Surplus land—Jurisdiction of Civil Court—The order lessee of the suit land, it cannot be said that the present suit is not; declaring the suit land surplus, under the Punjab Act, has attained maintainable in view of the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Law read 4finality as order was not challenged and the suit land vested in the with Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953. ; Gurdeep Singh and ,. State of Haryana, it became available for allotment under the LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 727 others v. Dera Gossian and another : 2008(3) ALL INDIA LAND Utilisation Scheme. The Prescribed Authority, therefore, was. well Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972—Section 11(5) and (7)--Surplus wbyithin its jurisdiction, in proceeding to allot the land. The order passed Area—Determination of—Whether the surplus area which has once entertain the suit, impugning the legality of the order passed by the the Prescribed Authority—The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to been determined, require redetermination in the hands of his heirs or is the determination of surplus area final and binding on the heirs?— Prescribed Authority was barred by the provisions of Section 26 of the Require Redetermination—Held; That until the surplus area has been Haryana Act. ; Megh Raj v. Manphool : 2008(2) ALL INDIA LAND finally determined by the Collector and appeals/revisions have been dismissed, the death of the landowner would certainly cause affectation to the surplus area which would be required to be redetermined in the hands of his heirs. Resultantly, where the surplus area has not been finally determined, and the matter is pending in appeals or revisions before the Revenue Courts or before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, or before the Supreme Court of India, death of the landowner would cause affectation of surplus area which would be required to be redetermined in the hands of the heirs of the deceased landowner. Such an interpretation would harmoniously construct the provisions of Section 11(5) and 11(7) and also give a proper interpretation to both the views expressed in case. ; Sardara Singh v. Financial Commissioner : 2008(2) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) (FB) 61 Punjab Land Refroms Act, 1972—Section 11(5) and (7)—Surplus Area—Determination of—Whether the surplus area which has once been determined, require redetermination in the hands of his heirs or is the determination of surplus area final and binding on the heirs?—Require Redetermination—Contention that until the final determination of surplus area, it is Section 11(5) that shall apply and not Section 11(7)—The final determination is the stage when calculation of surplus area has been completed, whether by the Collector or in appeal/revision by the hierarchy of the revenue courts upto the Financial Commissioner. It would be only when the remedy of final appeal/revision has been exhausted that it could be LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 493 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 94, Order 21, Rule 82—Haryana Ceiling on Lands Holdings Act, 1972, Section 12(3)—Surplus land— : Execution of decree of Civil Court—Scope of—Father of petitioner was a big land lord—Vide order 5.1.1960 the land measuring 242 kanal 4 marlas owner by him was declared surplus by the prescribed authority—The said land vested in state in view of the provision sub Section (3) of Section 12 the Ceiling Act from the appointed date i.e. 24.1.1971 on the State become the absolute owner of the said land— Petitioner challenging the order dated 5.1.1960 passed by the prescribed authority on 16.4.1986 Civil Court decreed the suit declaring the ordered 5.1.1960 as illegal, null and void its judgment and decree dated 17.4.1992—Execution of decree dated 17.4.1992— Ld. Courts below dismissed the execution petition—Validity thereof— Held; Interalia—Any judgment, decree or order of a Court or other authority, obtained after the appointed day and having the effect of diminishing the surplus area shall be ignored—Civil Suit below the civil Court was rot maintainable in view of Sections 12(4) and 26 of Act— :: Decree passed by a Court without Jurisdiction is nullity—Order of Courts below affirmed. ; Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana : 2008(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 266 Tenant's permissible area—A tenant is to establish (i) from 15.4.1953 consideration of surplus area case he remained in continuous occupation as a tenant, and (ii) he was a tenant on the land at the time of declaration of surplus land—Change of tenants during the interregnums would be immaterial. ; Makhan Singh v. THE PUNJAB SECURITY OF LAND TENURE ACT, 1953 45 THE PUNJAB SECURITY OF LAND TENURE ACT, 1953 State of Haryana and others : 2006(2) ALL iNotA LAND LAWScourt—Even if the statute expressly bars the jurisdiction of the civil REPORTER (Pb. & Hry) 660 Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 Section 14 —Surpluspcoaussitetdo beyn tseur teahi na at risbuui tri taol . ;c hsat al I teen goef Hthaeryvaanlidarlyv.or Smt l e!. area—Separation after consolidation—Conso<%2>lidation has takenALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (Pb. & Hry.) 112 place after the orders dated 31.8.1961 and 11.02.1963 declaring thePepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955— Section 18(1)— aPlitY unnofi t:h2e0u order ( l ) land in question as surplus--As per Section 14 of 1972 Act prescribedHaryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972— Section 8(1)— procedure has not been followed as the land has not been utilised tillPermissible area—Land in excess of—Protection against—Held, That 20.4.1978 i.e. order of allotment—Surplus area after consolidation washe transfers made prior to 30.7.1958 of land in excess of permissible not separated—Held, A competent officer who is empowered tolrea under the Act or Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, utiliz<%0>e the surplus area if a land owner owns land jointly and his;1955 were protected and the said sale deeds could not be ignored share of such land has been declared surplus—Held, Further once thezwhile determining surplus area as the same was protected by Section surplus area has been declared under the 1953 Act or any other8(1) of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.; State of Punjab Law then a landowner cannot seek determination on the same)-laryana v. Smt. Punni : 2005(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS as the surplus area has come to be vested in the state.; Shag MalAREPORTER (Pb. & Hry.) 112 and Others v. Ram Multi and Others : 2006(1) ALL ID IA LAND'Sections 2(3) and 2(5-a)—Surplus area—Relevant date—Transfer by LAWS REPORTER (Pb. & Hry.) 100 :petitioner held as executed andutation Order passed by the Financial commissioner—Not a speaking order- -,:recorded subsequent invalid to the sale relevant deeds date r 30.7.1958— Held-Where Financial Commissioner while adjudicating disputes under the Act is alregistered Sale deeds are executed, possession is parted with, quasi-judicial authority and the final authority at a conclusion this way complete title is transferred to the vendees from the vendors, the or that—The orders must be clearly discernible from the order relevant date would be the date registered sale deed when passed.; Jage (Died) through LRs. v. State of Haryana and others '.:consideration is passed and document is registered— Merely that : 2006(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (Pb. & Hry.) 183 i mutations were recorded in the year 1966 and thereafter would no way Punjab Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1973, Para 13—WhetherL:-alter the date of transfer by virtue of the sale deed.; Bata Ram (died) the relationship of landlord and tenant survives, when a sitting tenant i reptd. by LRs & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.: 2003(2) ALL is allotted land under the Punjab Law, prior to the coming into force o f INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (Pb. & Hry.)151 the Reforms Act ? Held, NO—The relationship comes to an end—Not 1 Section 2(8)—Only question to be decided is if the lands described only the allotment be deemed to be one under the Scheme framed as, Banjar Jadid, Banjar Qadim and Ghair mumkin, can be taken into under the Reforms Act but as the tenant would be a sitting tenant the'‘; consideration for the purposes of computing surplus area—Answer is land would be deemed to have been utilised and vested in the State.; '. No—Such land are not lands as - per section 2(8) of the 1953 Act— Jagat Singh and another v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and . Cannot be taken into account for computing surplus area.; Dharam others : 2006(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (Pb. & Hry.) Singh (deceased) L.Rs. and others v. Bhagwan Singh and others 205 : 2005(3) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTERHry.) 172 Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972—Land under the old tenants from the Sections 4 and 5—Unauthorised Occupabon7- Services of the tenants—Respondents changed . declaration of surplus area and - purview of surplus order—Land purchased by petitioners from such petitioner terminated—Eviction order shows in unauthorised order of Special Collector. ; Malawa Ram v. Stateof declared land as surplus—Land cannot be declared showthat thereallotment to the petitioner or his wife surplus when ' to was occupation of premises in suit dispute—No material placed on record already existing Punjab : 2006(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (Pb. ' Forest Department Through Range Officer & Ors : 2005(1) ALL b & Hry.) . subsequently—Petition dismissed.;- Ram Parshad v. Punjab State 363 Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955— Section 18(1)— INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (Pb. & Hry.) 276 Section 5(B)—Constitution - of India. Articles 226 and 227—Punjab Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, W72 Section 8(1)—Order by Land Reforms Act, 1972, Sections 8. 11(7), 28—Surplus land declared collector—Without notice to parry—Nul,ity— Challengeable in civil - after remand—Exparte order of—Death of landowner—The. decision of qq u l II THE PUNJAB SECURITY OF' LAND TENURE ACT, 1953 the COIlector in tne absence of landlord is fully justified and Form 'F' was ordered to be issued--It makes no provision for benefit of fragmentation to the heirs of big landowners, who had died and, therefore, whether such benefit has been given under the old Acts or not, there is not scope for doing so now, harsh though the impact may be—Section 11(7) of the new 'Act emphatically states that notwithstanding the death of the landowner, his surplus area is to be taken into possession by the State and utilized as prescribed— Landlord died after the commencement of this Ad and his heirs cannot claim such benefit and there is no justification to interfere with the order of. the Collector confirmed the Commissioner in appeal—The area which stood mortgaged was got redeemed by the big landowner and the same was directed to be counted in the holding of the landowner, who as per Annexure P-1 did, not appear and ultimately, the Collector Agrarian while exercising powers under Section 5-B of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, ordered issuance of Form. F—The petitioners cannot be given. the benefit as provided under Section 11(7) of the Land Reforms Act, 1972—Petition dismissed. ; Baldev Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others : 2009(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 325 Rule 6(3)—Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, Sections 24 A(2b), 10(A), ID(B)—Surplus area—Declaration of—Doctrine of 'acceleration succession'—Last male holder kept back all the land with himself—He in order to get over the provisions of Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, parted with the surplus land in favour of his sons and daughters—The gift cannot be held to be acceleration of succession—The doctrine of "acceleration succession" will only apply where the last male holder completely effaces himself. ; Bharpai v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh : 2009(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 272 Rule 6(3)—Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, Sections 24 A(2b), 10(A), 10(B)—Surplus area—Declaration of— Interested/concerned persons--Notice—Petitioners in order to get over the relevant provision of the Act, executed and registered gift deed in favour of her own daughters qua her land—She had not completely effaced herself—The land had not come to the petitioners on the opening or acceleration of succession—Thus, notice was not required to, be issued to the petitioners—Non-giving of the notice to them in rib;thanner amount to violation of cardinal canons of natural justice—The alleged gilt in favour of the petitioners is repugnant to the basic Scheme of the Act—The area stood already declared surplus on 1.1.1960 by the competent authority—No case is made out for 6 ' THE PUNJAB SECURITY OF LAND TENURE ACT, 1953 ?shiny the impug,ied order. , 3harpal v. Financial. Commissioner, ryana, Chandigarh : 2i'09(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS EPORTER (P&H) 272 . 4le 6(3)—Punjab Security of nd Tenures Act, 1953, Sections 24 A, I ( A), 10(B)—Surplus area-- eclaration of—Notice to interested rsons—Expression Interes—d/concerned persons'—Explained— Iftinteralia; Such persons are those whose interest is likely to be led by such declaration of surplus area—They may be the original nereVitheiand, old tenants and the persons who have a legal right fiellanchihich 'is subject matter of the proceedings and the right iCh is recognized or recognizable under the Act—An opportunity of mg heard is to be afforded to the persons concerned— FACTS titioners allegedly got the land on the' basis of the Gift dated .1.1960, obviously after 15.4.1953—Petitioner did not completely aced herself—No notice was required to. be issued to the titioners—They are not entitled for an opportunity of hearing—Writ smissed. .; Bharpai v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, handigarh : 2009(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 2 ule 6(3)—Notice on Form 'P--Natural Justice--Requirement of rvice of notice on all persons interested is ba'sed upon rinciples of natural justice requiring an opportunity being fforded to any person who is likely to be prejudicially affected y an order which might be passed in the relevant proceedings uch a notice cannot be dispensed with or ignored on the mere round that particular transferees who may otherwise be deemed o be the persons interested in the proceedings have really no ood defence to the proposed order, it is manifest that notice nder Rule 6(3) has to be issued in the proceedings before the ircle Revenue Officer only to such persons whose names may e mentioned in Form 'D' prepared by the Patwari or whose ames may be shown in the relevant revenue records available to e Circle Revenue Officer as either vendees or donees or other ansferees or tenants of the land which is proposed to be ncfuded in the surplus area of the original landowner. In the 'lysence of notice, entire proceedings shall vitiate. ; Anoop Singh nd others v. The State of Haryana and others : 2009(1) ALL NDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (MARCH PART) Section 13—Puniab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1953, Section 2(g)—Pt njab Public Premises (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1973,'Sections 3,4 & 7—Unauthorised occupation—Lawful tenant—A THE PUNJAB SECURITY OF LAND TENURE ACT, 1953 8 lawful tenant is one who has been admitted as tenant after following due procedure of law—in case the Sarpanch or any Panch inducts some one as tenant without following the procedure prescribed under the Rules, then such induction of the person will not be authorised or lawful and the Gram Panchayat will not be bound by that—Simply some one has paid or deposited the rent with the Gram Panchayat voluntarily after unauthorisedly occupying the Gram Panchayat land, he would not be deemed to be tenant. ; Gram Panchayat, VIII Haripura v. Commissioner, Ferozepur Division and anr. : 2006(3) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (SC) 585 Section 9—Agricultural land granted tenancy to tenant for 20 years— After expiry of lease period tenant becomes statutory tenant and not an unauthorised tenant—And such tenant can be evicted only in terms of one or the other grounds of eviction contemplated under Section 9 of the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act, 1953—Such eviction proceedings have to be initiated before the competent Revenue Court—Any illegality or irregularity in the finding recorded that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant a decree for possession—Appeal dismissed. ; Ram Lal v. Darshan Lal and others : 2009(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 370 Section 9(i) (ii) and 14-A (i)—Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 30—Entitlement of compensation—Tenants over the acquired land— Respondent nos 3 to 13 were tenants under the appellants at one point of time—Assistant Collector 1st Grade held that respondents nos. 3 to 13 were not tenants under the appellants—Ld. Collector accepted the appeal of the tenants and directed to deposit the arrears of rent—Respondents never complied with the order—They have no right to continue as such—Respondents nos. 3 to 13 are not entitled to any amount of compensation.; Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana : 2008(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) (DB) 517 Sections 9(1) (ii), 14-A(i)—Ejectment of tenant—Non payment of rent — Assistant Collector passed order of ejectment on tenant's failure to tender the rent — Whether such an order is sustainable? Held, No— He was duty bound to assess the arrears of rent, interest and cost of application and to quantify by way of interim or provisional order which the tenant had to pay within 15 days from the date of such hearing— Non-compliance of provisions of Section 14-A(i) of the Act cannot be sustained. ; Amar Singh and others v. F.C. Haryana & Ors. 2006(3) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 452 Sections 9(1) (ii), 14-A(i)—Ejectment of tenant for non payment of rent — Procedure—Section 9 lays down the grounds on which ejectment can be sought — Section 14 provides for the procedure to 9 THE PUNJAB SECURITY OF LAND TENURE ACT, 1953 be followed. ; Amar Singh and others v. F.C. Haryana & Ors.. : 2006(3) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER(P&H) 452 Section 9(1)(1i) 14-A(i)—Eviction—Non payment of rentlBatai inspite of demand—Assistant Collector passing order of ejectment—On challenge before the Collector; Collector remanding the matter holding that Assistant Collector is legally bound to calculate the arrears of rent and interest and to inform the tenant so that the amount could be paid—Commissioner upholding the findings of Collector—On revision Financial Commissioner reversed the findings of Commissioner and Collector on the ground that the land owners cannot be penalised for the default of Assistant Collector by not calculating the interest, when the amount of rent/batai was known to the tenants—Whether the findings of Financial Commissioner is sustainable in the law? NO- - Writ allowed—Impugned order set-aside—Orders passed by the Collector and Commissioner - restored interalia on the following grounds:- (Law discussed) (i) The Collector has to follow the procedure laid down as per provisions of Section 14-A of the Act. (ii) The Assistant Collector was duty bound to assess the arrears, interest, costs of application and then to quantify by way of interim order which the tenant had to pay or tender within 15. days from the date of such hearing.; Amar Singh, and others v. F.C. Haryana and others : 2006(2) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (Pb. & Hry.) 296 Section 9(1)(i)—Ejected tenant—Petitioners—Orders of ejectment subject to resettlement of petitioners on equivalent land available from separate pool—Allotment made—Petitioner resisted this allotment on grounds of poor quality of land as also being taken away from his • residence--Prayed for allotment some surplus and nearer his place-- On persistent requests, Commissioner alloted and in tarot:larder village, already in occupation of armed forces, possession to be given on armed forces vataling the land- -11, was later found by FC that Forces occupation was be continued indefinitely and thus FC reviwed its earlier order—Review is under challenge.; Des Raj alias Desp v. • Financial Commissioner, Taxation; Punjab and others: 2004(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (Pb.& Hry.) 316 Sections 9 (1)(i) and 77—Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 54—Ejectment proceedings pending before revenue court, landlords/Tena its enter into an agreement to sell land as per time bound programme—Half of earnest money paid—Thereafter tenants, prospective vendors, neither paid half of the earnest money, nor adhered to the time schedule for execution of the sale deed—And also 11 THE PUNJAB SECURITY OF LAND TENURE ACT, 1953 • Section 14-A(iii)— Constitution of India, ArticleS 226 & 227— Case was fixed before the financial commissioner fOr service of the petitioner— Financial Commissioner declined the reference made in favour of the petitioner by the commissioner, by passing a wholly non- speaking order—Service of the reference petition was effected on the petitioner—Deliberately did not appear on the said date—The declining of the reference by financial commissioner without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petition is clearly violative of the principles of natural justice—Held, same cannot be sustained and impugned order are liable to be quashed.; Pala Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others : 2004(2) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (Pb. & Hry.) 532 Sections 14-A(ii) and 2(8)—Ejectment of tenant—Failure to pay rent—Land in dispute described in Revenue Records as Gair Mumkin—Does not fall within the definition of land as contained under the Act—Authorities were not competent to decide the matter— Matter never raised before the authorities- -Held= Cannot be allowed to be raised first time—No equity to petitioner who remained in possession of a sizeable area of land without paying a penny for the last 27 years— Petition dismissed.; Kewal Singh v. Financial Commissioner and others : 2003(2) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (Pb. & Hry.) 478 Section 14A (ii) Form 'N'—Punjab- Tenancy Act, 1887—Section 77(3)—Non- payment of rent—Ejectment order under Pb. Tenancy Ad—Notice under Section 14A(ii) of Pb. Security of Land Tenures Act in form 'N' served on tenant—Non-compliance of procedure— Ejectment order set aside; Ramesh Chand v. Subhash Chand : ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (FC.- Hry.) 157 Section 18—Land purchased by tenant—Surplus land—Land purchased subsequent to the order of declaring surplus land— Purchase of land is illegal as no area was declared surplus on that date— Held, That by moving such an application for purchase of land under Section 18 of the Act has played a fraud on the Court-- Hence,the order was nullity.; Bhula and Others v. Hazara Singh and Others : 2005(3) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (Pb. & Hry.) 218 Secdons 18 and 9—Surplus land—Purchased before final declaration of surplus area—Claim of ownership not maintainable as no title is conferred—Ejectment of settled tenants, on application of such purchasers not maintainable-7Earlier order dismissing such application cannot operate as resjudicata, on conferment of title on THE PUNJAB SECURITY OF LAND TENURE ACT, 1953 10 stopped paying batai to the petitioners /landlords—Collector ordered ejectment—Upheld by Commissioner in appeal but F.C.set aside the order—it was held that agreement to sell entered; p: )t an end to the relationship of landlord tenants challenge to the observation is by this Civil Writ Petition—Under Section 54 of T.P.A. it cannot be said that mere execution of the sale agreement does not mean the right of the lessor has come to an end—Mere agreement to sell does not confer any title—Relationship -of• landlord Tenants are - t.ot - swapped. ; Harkaran Singh and ors. v. Financial Commissioner Haryana and ors.: 2004(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (Pb.& Hry.) 217 Section 9-A, First Proviso— Ejected Tenants—Resettlement of— All of ejected tenants to be resettled to the extent of 5 standard including another land held or owned by them and not each individual ejected tenant.; Dona Ram v. State of Punjab : ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (F.C. Pb) 241 Section. 10A(b)—Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, Section 18(6)—Surplus area—Resettlement of ejected tenants—High Court referred decision related to Maharashtra and U.P. to decide against appellants—However, High Court recorded no finding to the effect whether Maharashtra and U.P. States have any provisions similar to Section 10A(b) of Act—Moreover, it has also not recorded any finding as to whether after a long lapse of time, the action taken by non-offficial respondents in challenging the order in favour of appellants disentitled them from any relief—Held; basic issues had not be dealt by High Court—Matter remitted to High Court to decide the case afresh—However, parties permitted to place fresh material in support of their respective stands. ; Brij Lal (Dead) by Lrs. v. State of Haryana : 2008(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (SC) 323 Section. 10A(b)—Surplus area—Utilisation—Process of utilisation contemplated by Section 10A of Act is complete in respect of any 'surplus area" only when possession thereof has been taken by the allottee or allottees and the other formalities have been completed and there is no force in argument that a mere order of allotment has the effect of completing that process. ; Brij Lal (Dead) by Lrs. v. State of Haryana : 2008(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (SC) 323 Section 12—Rent—Enhancement of—Tenants, cultivating land on a nominal rent since long—Enhancement sought by landlord on ground of increase in value of land and increase in agricultural produce due to modern cultivating methods—Held— As per prelvant custom, rent to be determined as 1/3 batai of actual produce instead of fixing it.; Ram Kurriar v. Ram Nath : 2003(3) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (F.C. Haryana) 44 THE PUNJAB. SECURITY OF LAND TENURE ACT, 1953 12 such purchaser.; Bant Singh & ors. v. Financial Commissioner Punjab & ors.: 2003(2) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (Pb. & Hry) 617 Section 18(4)—Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972—Section 15— Application for purchase of surplus land has been said to be barred by limitation—In the 1953 Act. period for filing application has nowhere been provided under section 15 of the 1972, limitation for exercise of right to purchase is specified as one year from the Act comes in force—Right to purchase crystalised on the date of application and not the date when payment is made— Tenants became owners much before the land vested in State—No merit in plea of limitation.; Gurbax Singh and others v. Punjab State through Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others : 2005(3) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (Pb. & Hry.) 361 Section 18(4)—Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules 1956—Rules 20-C and 23(3)—Tenant made an application for purchase of land— Thereafter paid price of ft—Original owner submits since land stood acquired by the State during the period between the application and date of payment, the application stood abated— No rights passed to the tenant—In terms of Section 18(4) of the Act and Rule 20(C) of the Rules, even one instalment is paid the right of possession dates back to the date of application— Appkation has not abated; GurbaiSingh v. Punjab State through Financial Commissioner, Punjab : 2005(3) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (Pb. & Hry.) 361 Sections 19-B 19-C and 19-D--Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972— Section 12(3)— Petitioner's plea is for exemption of their land from pool of surplus area of their father—Father had sold the land to his sons in 1958—Father was a big land owner— Land in dispute came to be declared surplus in 1960—Not challenciecl--Order aitaleed finality— Haryana Act came into force on January 24, 1971- Section 12(3) of Haryana Act provided that all lands declared surplus lender Punjab Act of 1953, which remained unutilised and did not vest in the State, shall be deemed to have been vested in the State on the appointed day— Surplus area proceedingshaving become final under Punjab Act, could not be reopened in terms of Haryana Act, after 24.1.1971.; Janga v. Zora Singh : 2004(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (Pb. & Hry.)407 Section 21--Punjab Village Common Lands (Reg.) Act. 1961 — Section 7—Punjab Village Common Lands (Reg.) Rules, 1964—Rule 19—As per orders of the Asstt. Collector 1st Grade, confirmed by Collector and Commissioner, petitioner was ordered to be ejected from the land which he took on lease for one year from Gram 13 THE PUNJAB SECURITY OF LAND TENURE ACT, 1953 Panchayat, lease not renewed thereafter—Orders are challenged by this writ petition— Petitioners denied that Gram Panchayat was owner and further submitted that this question of title should have been decided by Asstt. Collector and then proceed further—After having taken the land on lease from Gram Panchayat, he could not deny the ownership . of the lessor—His possession after expiry of lease is unauthorised—Vires of the Rule 19 which defines the unauthorised person has been upheld as per 1969 PLJ 378— Unauthorised occupant can be ejected under Section 7 of the Pb. V.C.L. Act read with Rule 19—Provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 do not apply to Panchayat lands—Writ petition dismissed with costs.; Ved Parkash v. Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala 2003(3) Land.L.R. (Pb. & Hry.) 440 Section 24—Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 Sections 8(1)(a) and 18—Limitation for appeal end objections--Point of limitation is concerned, that service on Form 'F' is mandatory, which has not been served upon the present appellants. The limitation would start from the receipt of Form 'F' as held in the cases—The issue of delay was raked up by the respondents because in that case surplus are declared in the year 1962 was upheld In appeal in the year 1963 but the same was challenged in the year 1991 after about three decades can not be debarred from agitating on merits since Form 'F' was not served, therefore, order of the Collector is vitiated--In view of Section 8(1)(a) of the Haryana Act, irrespective of the relationship with the transferee and the mode of transfer, the transferred area declared surplus would not vest in the State Government under Section 12(3) of the Haryana Act and the transferee shall be entitled to retain that area--Appeal allowed. ; Anoop Singh and others v. The State of Haryana and others : 2009(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (MARCH PART) Section 24—Revision— Ejectment—Application in Form L—Held—As per revenue record ownership of land is Joint and respondent has not become exclusive owner—Application not maintainable; Ajit Singh v. Charan Kaur : ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (Pb. & Hry.) 649 Sections 24 A(2b), 10(A), 10(B)—Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956, "tule 6(3)—Surplus area—Declaration of—Doctrine of 'acceleration succession'—Last male holder kept back all the land with himself—He in order to get over the provisions of Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, parted with the surplus land in favour of his sons and daughters—The gift cannot be held to be acceleration of THE PUNJAB SECURITY OF LAND TEN JRE ACT, 1953 14 succession—The doctrine of "acceleration succe ;sion" wit only apply where the last male holder completely effaces in-iself. ; Bharpai v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandis; : 2009(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 272 Sections 24 A(2b), 10(A), 10(B)—Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1955, Rule 6(3)—Surplus area—Declaration of— Interested/concerned persons—Notice—Petitior. -.rs in order to get over the relevant provision of the Act, execute': and registered gift deed in favour of her own daughters qua her land—She had not completely effaced herself—The land had not come to the petitioners on the opening or acceleration of succession—Thus, notice was not required to be issued to the petitioners—Non-giving of the notice to them in no manner amount to violation of cardinal canons of natural justice—The alleged gift in favour of the petitioners is repugnant to the basic Scheme of the Act—The area stood already declared surplus on 1.1.1960 by the competent authority—No case is made out for quashing the impugned order. ; Bharpai v. Financial Comtnissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh : 2009(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 272 Sections 24 A, 10(A), 10(B)—Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956, Rule 6(3)—Surplus area—Declaration of—Notice to interested persons--Expression 'interested/concerned persons'— Explained—Held; Interalia; Such persons are those whose interest is likely to be affected by such declaration of surplus area—They may be the original owners of the land, old tenants and the persons who have a legal right in the land which is subject matter of the proceedings and the right which is recognized or recognizable under the, Act—An opportunity of being heard isles be afforded to the persons concerned-- ON FACTS Petitioners allegedly got the land on the basis of the Gift dated 13.1.1960, obviously after 15.4.1953—Petitioner did not completely effaced herself—No notice was required to be issued to the petitioners—They are not entitled for an opportunity of hearing;—Writ dismissed. ; Bharpai v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh: 2009(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 272 Section 27(e)—Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, Section 4(1)—Land Revenue Assessment Rules, 1929, Rule 2(2)—Surplus area—'Gair Mumkin' as well as 'Bawl' Land cornputed towards total holding of the landowner for assessing the surplus area—The 'Barani' Land if falls within the ambit of 'Banjar Jadid' or 'Banjar Kadim' has to be excluded from surplus area—Matter remitted to the Collector to 15 THE PUNJAB SECURITY OF LAND TENURE ACT, 1953 ascertain the extent of Gair Mumkin and, Banjar Kadim and Banjar Jadid at the relevant date and recompute the permissible area and decide the case afresh. ; Wing Commander Paramprit Singh v. State of Punjab : 2009(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 135 Rule 6—Surplus Area Proceedings—Whether surplus proceedings finalised without issuance of notice to the tenant are violative of the provisions of the Act and the principles of natural justice ? Held, Yes— Such proceedings would be void vis- a-vis the rights of the tenant being violative of the provisions of the Act and the principles of natural justice.; Makhan Singh v. State of Haryana and others : 2006(2) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (Pb. & Hry) 660 Rules 6(7)—Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, Section 90—Declaration of surplus area— Failure to served notice—Whether a transferee could claim a right to include his land in the permissible area of the Vendor/big landowner? A transferee from a big land-owner before the surplus area case is concluded is mandatorily required to be served with a notice. ; Smt. Ranjeet Kaur v. State of Haryana : 2006(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (Pb. & Hry.) 211 Rules 6(7)—Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953—Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, Section 90—Declaration of surplus area— Failure to served notice—Whether a transferee could claim a right to include his land in the permissible area of the Vendor/big landowner? A transferee from a big .land-owner before the surplus area case is concluded is mandatorily required to be served with a notice. ; Smt • Ranjeet Kaur v. State of Haryana : 2006(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (Pb. & Hry.) 211 Rules 20-C and 23(3)—Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953— Section 18(4)—Tenant made an application for purchase of land— Thereafter paid price of it—Original owner submits since land stood acquired by the State during the period between the application and date of payment, the application stood abated— No rights passed to the tenant—In terms of Section 18(4) of the Act and Rule 20(C) of the Rules, even one instalment is paid the right of possession dates back to the date of application— Application has not abated; Gurbax Singh and others v. Punjab State through Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others : 2005(3) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (Pb. & Hry.) 361 is Read and Sabscnte III India Land Laws Reporter Monthly An unique law journal reporting exclusivley pronouncements of Highest Court of Law of India on Civil, Revenue, Co-oprative cases, Municipalties and Municipal Corporation and La rif1 Acguisition & Co__p ensation cases Annual Subscription Rs. 1390/- for 3 Vols. Jan to Dec. Bound Vol. Rs.550/- Per Vol. Volumes Available : 1979 to 2008 (Vol. No 1 to 89) Price Digest of III India Land Laws Reporter 1979 to 2006 Vol. 1 to 9 Price Rs. 550/- Per Vol. it B.