Surplus Land Allotment Prior to 1972 Act Cannot Be Reopened by Legal Heirs: P&H High Court Upholds Finality of Appellate Orders

Case Name: Deva Singh (since deceased) through his legal representative(s) and others v. State of Haryana and others

Date of Judgment: 24 February 2026

Citation: CWP-3792-1980

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that where surplus land had been allotted and possession handed over to allottees prior to the enforcement of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, such allotment could not be reopened at the instance of legal heirs of the big landowner. Once the appellate order protecting the allotment had attained finality and was not challenged before the Revisional Authority or in the writ petition, the petitioners could not seek release of the entire surplus land.

Summary: The petitioners, being the legal representatives of late Smt. Nimbo, invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of orders passed by the Land Revenue Authorities concerning surplus land situated in Village Bastara, Tehsil and District Karnal.

Smt. Nimbo was declared a big landowner, and by order dated 13.07.1960, 359 Kanals and 1 Marla of land was declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 read with the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Rules, 1956. She passed away on 06.01.1968.

Out of the surplus land so declared, 184 Kanals and 16 Marlas were allotted to respondent Nos.11 to 66 prior to her death, and possession was handed over to them. Subsequently, 166 Kanals and 5 Marlas were allotted to respondent Nos.5 to 9 on 16.09.1976, i.e., after her demise.

The Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 came into force on 24.01.1971. The petitioners, being legal heirs of Smt. Nimbo, filed an application under Section 8 of the 1972 Act seeking release of surplus land, primarily in respect of the allotment made to respondent Nos.5 to 9. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application and ordered release of the entire surplus land.

Both sets of allottees, i.e., respondent Nos.5 to 9 and respondent Nos.11 to 66, preferred separate appeals. The Appellate Authority, by two distinct orders dated 19.04.1979, allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority. The petitioners, however, challenged the appellate order only qua respondent Nos.5 to 9 before the Revisional Authority. The order concerning respondent Nos.11 to 66 was neither assailed before the Revisional Authority nor specifically challenged in the writ petition, and thus attained finality.

Before the High Court, the petitioners contended that there was non-compliance with Rule 20-C of the 1956 Rules as Qabuliyat or Patta had not been placed on record by respondent Nos.11 to 66, and therefore, the surplus land could not be treated as “utilized” prior to the enforcement of the 1972 Act. It was argued that in the absence of such compliance, the land remained available for release under Section 8 of the 1972 Act.

The Court rejected this submission. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Krishna Kumari v. State of Haryana (1999) 1 SCC 338, it held that execution of Qabuliyat is followed by delivery of possession and where possession has in fact been handed over, the requirement of Rule 20-C stands satisfied. In the present case, there was no dispute that possession had been handed over to respondent Nos.11 to 66 prior to the death of Smt. Nimbo and before the coming into force of the 1972 Act.

The Court further noted that the petitioners had not specifically sought relief in respect of the land allotted to respondent Nos.11 to 66 in their application under Section 8 of the 1972 Act. Moreover, the appellate order dated 19.04.1979 in favour of respondent Nos.11 to 66 had neither been challenged before the Revisional Authority nor in the writ petition. Consequently, that order had attained finality and could not be indirectly reopened through the present proceedings.

The Court also observed that the writ petition did not clearly identify the impugned orders insofar as respondent Nos.11 to 66 were concerned and that the petitioners had consciously refrained from challenging the appellate order protecting their allotment. In these circumstances, there was no occasion to interfere with the allotment already made and possession delivered prior to the 1972 Act.

Decision: The writ petition, insofar as it concerned respondent Nos.11 to 66, was dismissed.