MARU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writs Nos. 209 and 229 of 1968 as common questions of law and fact arise in them.

(2.) The facts on which there is no dispute, are that Chetan Dass, respondent No. 2, was allotted 1 Standard Acre and 14-3/4 Units of evacuee land as a displaced person in 1949 in village Kuleri, Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hissar, Suba Mal, father of respondent No. 2, who died on 16th December, 1949, was also allotted land measuring 70 Standard Acres and 14-1/4 Units as a displaced person in village Mirpur in 1950. After his death this land was inherited by respondent No. 2 and his brother in equal shares. The total holding of respondent No. 2 thus became 37 Standard Acres and 5-7/8 Units. The petitioners have been cultivating the land, details of which have been given in paragraph 1 of the petitions, under respondent No. 2 for more than eight years, and on that ground applications under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were filed by them for the purchase of the land under their tenancy on 31st January, 1966. These applications were allowed by the Assistant Collector, Fatehabad vide his orders dated 16th September, 1966 (copy Annexure 'A' to the petitions). Feeling aggrieved from the orders of the Assistant Collector, respondent No. 2 filed appeals but the same were rejected by the Collector, Hissar, on 7th December, 1966 (copy Annexure 'B' to the writ petitions). Still dissatisfied, revisions were filed by respondent No. 2, but the same were rejected by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, on 10th May, 1967 (copy Annexure 'C' to the petitions). However, in revisions filed by respondent No. 2 before the Financial Commissioner, the orders of the Revenue Officers below were set aside vide orders dated 21st November, 1967 (copies Annexures D/1 and E to the petitions), and the applications filed by the petitioners were dismissed. By way of these petitions the legality and correctness of the orders of the Financial Commissioner dated 21st November, 1967, have been challenged by the tenants.

(3.) The short question that requires determination in these petitions, is whether Chetan Dass respondent No. 2 is a small landowner within the meaning of clause (b), proviso (ii) sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act, or to put it in a more precise manner whether to the extent of the area inherited by respondent No. 2 after the death of his father on 16th December, 1949, would he be deemed to be a displaced person ? In case the answer is in the affirmative, then admittedly no exception can be taken to the decision of the Financial Commissioner and in case the answer is in the negative, then the impugned decision is not sustainable.