STATE OF HARYANA Vs. COMMISSIONER, HISAR DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the State of Haryana through Tehsildar, Tosham, impugning the order of the Commissioner, Hisar Division, dated July 18, 1997 (Annexure P-10).

(2.) ONE Smt. Pari owned 37 bighas 1 biswa of land in village Kairu (equivalent to 57 kanals 16 marlas post consolidation). She died issuless and without any heirs, which led to the land being escheated to the State and mutation in this respect was sanctioned on August 28, 1971. The Collector allotted the said land to Mahabir and Bhola vide order dated July 7, 1976. There was a term in the agreement which debarred Mahabir and Bhola from mortgaging or transferring or parting with the possession of the land or any part thereof till they became owners. However, Mahabir and Bhola parted with the possession of the above land in violation of the said term in 1977 when Chhotu respondent No. 2 came into possession of the land in Kharif 1977 in an unauthorised manner without any lease granted by the State. Consequently, the Collector cancelled the allotment vide order dated February 26, 1985. This order was challenged by Bhola and vide order dated March 23, 1987 the Commissioner, Hisar Division, respondent No. 1 set aside the cancellation of allotment. The State of Haryana being aggrieved filed an appeal before the Financial Commissioner, who vide order dated April 6, 1994 set aside the Commissioner's order and restored that of the Collector. Thereupon, the State through Tehsildar filed an eviction petition under the provisions of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 against Chhotu-respondent No. 2, which petition was accepted on February 27, 1997. Chhotu filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, who accepted the appeal vide the impugned order dated July 18, 1997.

(3.) THE petition was contested by Chhotu respondent No. 2 by filing a written statement to the effect that he and before him his father, was cultivating the suit land as gair marusi from Kharif 1977 and there was a finding to that effect by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge and District Judge. The findings of the Civil Court were binding on the revenue authorities, therefore, the petition was not maintainable.