Section 19-E in the principal Act and that section reads as below: "19-E. land owned by Hindu undivided family to be deemed land of one landowner. ' -- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force,-- (a) Where, immediately before the commencement of this Act, a landowner and his descendants constitute a Hindu undivided family, the land owned by such family shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be the land of that landowner and no descendant shall, as member of such family, be entitled to claim that in respect of his share of such land he is 3 landowner In his own right; and (b) a partition of land owned by a Hindu undivided family referred to in Clause (a) shall be deemed to be a disposition of land for the purposes of Sections 10-A and 16. Explanation.-- In this section, the expression 'descendant' includes an adopted son. " In Pepsu Act 13 of 1955 similarly Section 32-KK has been inserted, and, as already stated, this Is in" words exactly the same as Section 19-E in the former act and as reproduced above.
6. Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act lays down, inter alia, that when a Hindu male dies after the commencement of this Act having at the time of his death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with this Act. Then follows the proviso which states, inter alia, that if the deceased had left him surviving a female relative specified in class I of the schedule, which includes a widow, the interest of the deceased shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, Explanation (1) to Section 6 states, inter alia, that for the purpose of this section, interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not. This explanation defines the expression "the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara coparcenary property"
In a case decided by P&H high court in the matter of
Babu Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 28 January, 2015
is settled proposition of law that in case the landowner dies at any stage of pending litigation, the surplus area has to be re- determined afresh in the hands of his legal heirs. Even the decision of Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana high Court in the case of Ranjit Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, 1981 PLJ 259 has been approved by Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Singh (dead) by L.Rs. v. The Collector, Bhatinda, 1996(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 446 and Full Bench of this Court in Sardara Singh and others v. The Financial Commissioner and others, 2008(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 744 has specifically held that death of big landowner during the pendency of surplus area proceedings causes affectation of surplus area which is required to be redetermined in the hands of the heirs of the deceased landowner.