JUDGMENT
T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from taking possession of the land on the ground that the same belongs to the petitioners. One Hardayal was the owner of the land. The possession of the disputed land was declared as surplus by order of the Collector dated March 16, 1961, in the proceedings taken under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (Hereinafter called the Act).
2. According to the petitioners, the land in dispute was gifted by Hardyal to his son Gordhan sometime in 1954 prior to June 1954, and therefore, the same has to be excluded from the holding of Hardyal, Gordhan being the legal heir of Hardyal on the death of Hardayal. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the declaration of surplus area in the hands of Hardayal does not vest in the State and, thus the petitioner cannot be dispossessed from the said land by the Government.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the land in question was the subject-matter of gift by the land-owner in 1954 in favour of his son Gordhan, and, therefore, the land could not be included in the holding of Hardayal and it is to be excluded from his holding. The land would devolve on the petitioners on the death of the Gordhan. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that on March 16, 1961, the Collector has shown the area of 30 Std. acres to be the area of land owner and declared the remaining area of 62.93 ordinary acres/15.66 Std. acres as surplus area belonging to Hardayal and in the order dated August 11, 1962, he has shown 60 ordinary acres–14.96 standard acres as permissible area to be remained with the land owner and this discrepancy has not been explained by the authorities concerned. He also further contended that the property has not been utilised by the respondent–State. Therefore, the property remained in possession of Gordhan son of Hardayal and after the death of Gordhan it remained in possession of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be dispossessed from the land in dispute.
4. I am unable to agree with any of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Even if there is a gift property by Hardayal in favour of his son Gordhan, there is nothing in the Rules which excludes any transfer effected by the land-owner after the commencement of the Act. and prior to July 31, 1958. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to Section 19(a) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. Section 19(a) only deals with future equation by the land-owner and according to Section 19 (a) after the commencement of the Act, it has to be excluded from the holding of the landowner. Section 19 (a) does not deal with the case where the land owner makes a gift by transfer to property in any manner. The learned counsel did not draw my attention to any provision in the Act which enables the land-owner to claim exemption of any property on the ground that he transferred the property after the commencement of this Act and prior to any particular date. In the absence of any such provisions, any transfer of land has to be ignored. Therefore, the gift in favour of the son of Hardayal in the year 1954 has to be naturally ignored for the purposes of determining the surplus area held by the land-owner.
5. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the property is not vested in the Government and that the land-owner and the petitioners continued to be in possession of the land and, therefore, the Government cannot dispossess the petitioners. Section 12 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, clearly stipulated that the area declared surplus or tenants permissible area which has not so far vested in the State Government under the Punjab Law and the area declared surplus under the Pepsu Law shall be deemed to have vested in the state Government with effect from the appointed day and the area which may be so declared in the pending proceedings to be decided under the Punjab law or Pepsu Law shall be deemed to have vested in the State Government with effect from the date of such declaration. Therefore, when the land in possession has been determined to be surplus land under the rules, it itself stands vested in the Punjab Government irrespective of the fact whether the Government has taken possession of the same or whether the said land has been utilised by the Government or not. Therefore, there is a statutory vesting of the land in the Government. It cannot be said that the Government has no power to take possession of the land which has been declared surplus under the Rules.
6. Further the orders under the Act have become final. The petitioners filed this writ petition in 1981, i.e. after a lapse of nearly eighteen years from the date of the order under the Punjab Act. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the Collector under the Act determining the surplus area of Hardayal, They should have moved the authorities for rectification of the order. Remedies by way of appeal have been proved under the Act. The Writ Petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay on the part of the petitioners.
7. The petitioners also cannot get any relief, and they cannot be deemed to be the aggrieved parties. Hardayal who is the land-owner has not challenged the orders determining the surplus area under the rules. His son Gordhan on whom the property has been gifted was alive till 1980. He did not challenge the proceedings under the Rules. The petitioners who claimed to be the heirs of Gordhan filed this writ petition in order to challenge the order which has become final. It is not open to the petitioners to challenge the same now as they invoke the rights of either Gordhan or his father Hardayal.
In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.