SAMPURAN SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

SAMPURAN SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

The surplus land, though allowed to remain in possession of the previous landholder, stood vested in the State by statutory operation, precluding reopening or recomputation for the appellant and his sons; neither Act allows such provision, and the constitutional validity of vesting with retrospective effect is upheld.

Parties
Appellant: Sampuran Singh; Respondents: State of Haryana and Ors.; Advocate: G.I.K. Bansal; Advocate: K.K. Mohan; Advocate: Rajiv Dutta; Advocate: Vipin Nair; Advocate: Mahabir Singh; Advocate: J.D. Jain; Advocate: Ms. Shirin Jain; Advocate: Ms. V. Mohana; Advocate: Ms. Indu Malhotra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 January 1994
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Punjab & Haryana High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Land Ceiling, Retrospective Legislation, Surplus Land Vesting
Land Law Constitutional Law Land Ceiling Retrospective Legislation Surplus Land Vesting

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sampuran Singh

Appellant

State of Haryana and Ors.

Respondents

G.I.K. Bansal

Advocate

K.K. Mohan

Advocate

Rajiv Dutta

Advocate

Vipin Nair

Advocate

Mahabir Singh

Advocate

J.D. Jain

Advocate

Ms. Shirin Jain

Advocate

Ms. V. Mohana

Advocate

Ms. Indu Malhotra

Advocate

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Punjab & Haryana High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to reopening of surplus land declaration under Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 due to his sons becoming majors.
  2. 2 Whether the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 is constitutionally valid despite retrospective operation and vesting of land.

Ratio Decidendi

The surplus land, though allowed to remain in possession of the previous landholder, stood vested in the State by statutory operation, precluding reopening or recomputation for the appellant and his sons; neither Act allows such provision, and the constitutional validity of vesting with retrospective effect is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No interference with High Court order
  • No costs awarded