RAM DEVI WIDOW OF NARANJAN DASS AND ANOTHER Vs. THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in the writ petition is the consideration of whether an order declaring surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (Act of 1953 for short), if it had become final, could be reopened at the stage of a claim by tenant for allotment to the property under the Haryana Utilization of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme, 1972. The core consideration under such an issue is on the contention whether the land owner is entitled to specify within his reserved area the property that is cultivated by a tenant, which is independently claimed by the tenant as falling within his permissible area.

(2.) The petitioner claimed that she was a displaced person from the place in India, which is presently in Pakistan and as displaced person she had been allotted the properties in India to an extent of 85.96 standard acres. As displaced person, she was entitled to an extent of 100 ordinary acres or 50 standard acres under the Act of 1953. On 31.03.1961, one Moman had applied for purchase of the property held by him as a tenant in respect of 27 bighas comprised in Khasra No.1482 in village Basti Bhiwan, Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hisar under Section 18 of the Act of 1953. The order had been passed allowing for a right of purchase to the tenant. Subsequently about the same time in the year 1961, it appears that the Collector Surplus Area, Hisar had taken up an enquiry regarding the property holding status of the petitioner and after the determination of surplus on 17.06.1961, it had gone in appeal and been remanded subsequently when a final order came to be passed on 14.06.1964. The relevant abstract of the order, which is necessary for our case, records of facts relating to the holding and it is reproduced hereunder:-

(3.) Finally the Court found that the petitioner had been left with an extent of less than 50 standard acres in her possession and therefore, there was no surplus land with the owner. It appears that Nand Lal, Ranjit Singh and Balbir, who are the respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein had preferred an appeal against this order seeking a claim in relation to the property, which had been in their possession as tenants but which had been allowed to be retained by the petitioner within her reserved area. The appeal was dismissed as time barred. It had become final.