GOBIND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gobind, his wife Jai Kauri, and sister Kesar have filed this civil writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the proceedings taken by the State of Haryana, through its officers in the Revenue Department, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter briefly referred to as 'the Act'. Where sections are mentioned without giving any other indication these may be taken to be of this Act). These proceedings had been initiated on a purchase application filed by Biru, a tenant, under Section 18. Biru died during the proceedings before the Revenue authorities and his heirs, respondent Nos. 3 to 6, were impleaded as his legal representatives. These protracted proceedings twice moved up and down between the Assistant Collector respondent No. 2 and the Financial Commissioner respondent No. 1 and the hierarchy of officers in between. Annexures 'A' to 'I' are the various orders passed in the two rounds or series. Ultimately the tenant's purchase application stood allowed when the petitioners' revision petition was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on 23.9.1969. Annexures 'I' is the final order, ringing down the curtain after all over these proceedings.

(2.) One Ran Singh was the owner of the land in dispute. He had failed to make any reservation or selection of his permissible area within time in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 or 5-B(1). The Collector had also made not any selection for him under Section 5-B(2) even though this section had been brought on the statute book many years earlier. The Assistant Collector while hearing the purchase application of Biru deceased under Section 18(2) evaluated Ran Singh's holding as 30 standard acres and 4 units by his order dated 5.8.1959 (annexure 'A'). The small fraction of a standard acre was the straw that seems to have broken the landowner's back and to have had the effect of reducing him not only to a small but to a landless owner.

(3.) Ran Singh had sold his land by two registered sale deeds dated 31.10.1957 in favour of the petitioners. 94 kanals and 13 marlas of land were sold to Jai Kauri and Kesar petitioners by one sale deed and 8 kanals of land comprising Khasra No. 26/2 was sold by the other sale deed in favour of Gobind petitioner. These sales are being rightly ignored by the revenue authorities in so far as they have the effect of reducing the surplus area of the landowner for utilization under Section 10-A for the resettlement of eligible tenants. The purchase application filed by the deceased father of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 has, however, been allowed in respect of a total area of 102 kanals and 13 marlas which includes the land purchased by the petitioners. The landowner Ran Singh had a surplus area of only a quarter of a standard acre but the Assistant Collector may appear to have penalised him on the ground that he had been sleeping over his rights and that the Assistant Collector was helpless to redress the landowner's grievances even if he had been reduced to the position of a small or a landless owner.