SURJA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated April 30, 1998 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No. 4 and order dated March 22, 2000 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No. 5.

(2.) THIS case has a long history and going on since the year 1979. Petitioners, who are the tenants of one Shri Gurdayal Singh, a big landowner, were ordered to be ejected from their tenancy under Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Punjab Act) subject to their resettlement on surplus area. Thereafter the competent authority took up their case for allotment of land to them on January 31, 1979, and keeping in view the criteria laid down under the Haryana Utilisation of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 1976 Scheme) allotted land to them as per their entitlement, against which one complaint was filed by respondent No. 6 Mani Ram and the allotment was cancelled vide order dated June 18, 1982 by the allotment authority by holding that the petitioners were not eligible for any allotment of land. Appeal filed by the petitioners was partly accepted by the Collector, Sirsa, on November 23, 1982, who modified the order of allotment dated January 31, 1979, in their favour. Respondent No. 6-Mani Ram then filed two revision petitions before the Commissioner, Hisar, who vide his order dated July 25, 1985. set aside the order passed by the Collector. The petitioners then filed two revision petitions before the Financial Commissioner-State of Haryana, which were allowed vide order dated December 30, 1992, upholding entitlement of the petitioner to get the land allotted. The case was remanded to the allotment authority to decide their cases afresh after making necessary calculation. It was also ordered that since the petitioners have concealed certain facts while moving the application for allotment, necessary action be initiated against them as per law. Relevant portion of the order dated December 30, 1992, reads as under :

(3.) AGAINST the order Annexure P-2, respondent No. 6-Mani Ram filed an appeal before the Collector, which was dismissed vide order dated December 20, 1995 (Annexure P-3). Respondent No. 6 feeling aggrieved filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Hissar. The same was allowed by him vide order dated April 30, 1998 (Annexure P-4) setting aside the allotment made in favour of the petitioners. Then the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner-respondent No. 5, against the order Annexure P-4 which was dismissed by respondent No. 5 vide order dated March 22, 2000 (Annexure P-5). Hence the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to challenge the orders Annexures P-4 and P-5 passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner respectively.