MAMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereafter called the Act), against the order dated 19.4.1994 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Gohana; the order dated 19.1.1995 passed by the Collector, Sonepat and the order dated 13.5.1999 passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division.

(2.) IT has been claimed that the petitioner was a big landowner who submitted his declaration form under Section 9 of the Act to the Prescribed Authority, Gohana on 12.5.1977 for the determination of the status of permissible area and surplus area. The said authority decided the case vide order dated 12.9.1980 giving permissible area of two units, one primary unit for the petitioner and his family and one separate unit for his adult son Azad Singh and declared the rest of the area of 22 Kanals and 5 Marlas as surplus. Since this order was passed after hearing the representative of the State and not challenged in any Court of law it was assumed to have attained finality. Without availing of the remedies of appeal and revision available under the Act under Sections 18(1) and 18(4), before the Collector and Commissioner respectively, a direct revision petition was filed before the Financial Commissioner after approximately nine years pleading that Azad Singh, the son of the petitioner, was not an adult on the appointed day; therefore the Prescribed Authority had wrongly given the benefit of an extra unit in the absence of any evidence regarding the age of the petitioner's son. The Financial Commissioner accepted this contention and remanded the case vide order dated 30.10.1999 to the Prescribed Authority for a fresh decision after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence. The Prescribed Authority then decided the case vide order dated 19.4.1994 declaring an area of 345 Kanals and 12 Marals of 'C' category land as surplus and refused to give the benefit of an extra unit. It has been claimed that this was not legally justified. Further the appeal of the petitioner to the Collector was dismissed on 19.1.1995 in a summary fashion without due application of mind and the available evidence on record. This resulted in a revision petition to the Commissioner who also dismissed the case vide the impugned order dated 13.5.1999.

(3.) THE only contention of the State has been that Sunehra and Azad Singh are not the same person and to this effect it placed reliance on the School Certificate.