BHARAT BHUSHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This will also dispose of Letters Patent Appeal No. 63 of 1989 as both these appeals arise out of the same judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17.12.1988.

(2.) Prem Nath was big landowner who died on 3.6.1976. During his life-time the Special Collector vide order dated June 24,1969 declared surplus area in his hands. Later on a penalty of 10 standard acres on the holding of land-owner was imposed thereby reducing his permissible area to 20 standard acres vide order dated May 3, 1978 passed by the Special Collector, Haryana, Chandigarh, copy Annexure R-1. After the death of the original landowner Prem Nath, his son Bharat Bhushan challenged the said order dated 3.5.1978 passed by the Special Collector primarily on the ground that since the surplus area was not utilised till the death of his father Prem Nath, the matter was to be decided afresh under the provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. The said order was maintained upto the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, vide order dated August 14,1985 Annexure P-3 in Civil Writ Petition No. 4451 of 1985 whereas in Civil Writ Petition No. 850 of 1986 the order of the Financial Commissioner is dated 7.1.1986 copy Annexure P-2. Both these orders were challenged by Bharat Bhushan by filing two separate writ petitions which have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Dissatisfied with the same Bharat Bhushan has filed these two Letters Patent Appeals.

(3.) The main argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that since the area declared surplus in the hands of Prem Nath landowner was never utilised till his death on 3.6.1976, his heirs were entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, and, therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge in this behalf was wrong and illegal. In support of his contention, he cited Darbara Singh and Ors. V. Haryana State and Ors., 1989 1 RRR 458, Ranjit Ram V. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and others, 1981 PunLJ 259, Narain Gir and others V. The State of Haryana and others, 1986 RRR 222. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the controversy stands concluded by the Full Bench judgment of this Court Smt. Jaswant Kaur and another V. The State of Haryana and another, 1977 PunLJ 230. He also cited Thath Singh and others V. The State of Haryana, 1986 RRR 180Shiv Narain and others V. The State of Haryana and another, 1984 RRR 432 and Ram Singh and others V. State of Haryana and another,1982 PunLJ 102. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the case law cited at the Bar, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in these appeals.