Amar Chand Vs. Kishan Singh & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. of 1987
(In SLP 5055/87)
(In SLP 5055/87)
Petitioner: Amar Chand
Respondent: Kishan Singh & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. of 1987
(In SLP 5055/87)
(In SLP 5055/87)
Judges: A.P. SEN & B.C. RAY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 17, 1987
Head Note:
HARYANA CEILING ON LAND HOLDINGS ACT, 1972 :
Section 12 – Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 – Redetermination of surplus area – Whether land declared surplus had been utilised by allotment to the appellant – Non application of mind by the High Court- Matter remanded to the HIgh Court for disposal afresh.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Special leave granted. Arguments heard.
2. We are inclined to the view that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the second appeal in limine. Undoubtedly, redetermination of the surplus area under the provisions of s.12(2) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 would arise if the land declared surplus under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 had not been utilised by allotment of the land to the appellant Amar Chand. In dealing with the question the High Court had necessarily to decide whether there was an allotment made in favour of the appellant Amar Chand as asserted before us, and if so, whether the learned District Judge was right in holding that the surplus land had not been utilised within the meaning of s.12(3) of the Act. We regret to find that the High Court in dismissing the second appeal summarily failed to apply its mind to these questions.
3. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and direct the High Court to hear and dispose of the second appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible. No costs.
1. Special leave granted. Arguments heard.
2. We are inclined to the view that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the second appeal in limine. Undoubtedly, redetermination of the surplus area under the provisions of s.12(2) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 would arise if the land declared surplus under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 had not been utilised by allotment of the land to the appellant Amar Chand. In dealing with the question the High Court had necessarily to decide whether there was an allotment made in favour of the appellant Amar Chand as asserted before us, and if so, whether the learned District Judge was right in holding that the surplus land had not been utilised within the meaning of s.12(3) of the Act. We regret to find that the High Court in dismissing the second appeal summarily failed to apply its mind to these questions.
3. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and direct the High Court to hear and dispose of the second appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible. No costs.
