HC raps state for 50-yr delay in deciding land allotment case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has castigated Haryana for its failure to take a decision for over 50 years in a matter involving 100 kanals, originally belonging to the Provincial Government, but allotted to a tenant who cultivated the land until its transfer to him on 1973 for Rs 500.

The land was allotted to Nanak under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. He became owner in possession, but the revenue record was never corrected from tenancy to ownership. The State and other defendants, relying on erroneous revenue entries in their favour, sought to auction the land, compelling the filing of a suit, seeking declaration of ownership and protection against illegal alienation.

Dismissing the state’s appeal filed 28 years ago against Yamunanagar court orders, Justice Virinder Aggarwal asserted, “No decision was rendered by the State of Haryana for over half a century,” holding the delay as emblematic of systemic failure.

“The official concerned delayed action for over half a century, failing to confirm the sale, and Nanak himself passed away while awaiting the decision, demonstrating a lamentable failure of the administrative machinery,” Justice Aggarwal observed.

Referring to the Act, the Bench observed surplus land from large landholders was to be acquired and allotted to eligible tenants. “Nanak was found to be one such eligible tenant, and the suit land was accordingly allotted to him in accordance with the objectives of the Act. Nanak deposited the sale consideration in 1973, after which the competent authority was required to confirm the sale in his favour.”

“It is incumbent upon the bureaucracy to act expeditiously to ensure that the legislative intent of the Act is realized.… Given that the sale has not been formally rejected by the competent authority for such an inordinate period, it must be deemed to have been confirmed,” the court said.

Rejecting the state’s argument that the case stood governed by the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972, Justice Aggarwal said the plea was never raised before any lower court and was without merit. The court added that the 1972 Act safeguarded all applications pending immediately before its commencement, directing that such matters would be decided as if the Act had not been enacted.

Concluding that Nanak had acquired absolute ownership of the land, the court held: “The appellant-State is without any legal or equitable authority to forcibly dispossess the respondents-plaintiffs, and any claim of possession would lie exclusively with the natural heirs of Nanak, who may initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.”