TEK RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land in dispute was allotted to respondent No. 5 vide allotment dtd. 11/1/1977 considering the said respondent to be an eligible person for allotment of surplus land. The petitioner (big land owner whose land was declared surplus) sought a review of the said order but the same was rejected vide order dtd. 22/11/1984 (Annexure P-l). Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal against the said order before the Collector which was accepted vide order dtd. 5/5/1986 (Annexure P-2). Further, appeal by the allottee-respondent No. 5 before the Commissioner was dismissed. However, revision carried by him before the learned Financial Commissioner has succeeded and the allotment has been restored vide order dtd. 28/8/1990 (Annexure P-4). It is this order which is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dtd. 28/8/1990 was not in his knowledge as he was proceeded against ex-parte. The ex-parte order was also wrong as no service was ever effected upon the petitioner. Knowledge was acquired in the year 2021 only when the private respondents came to the spot to take over possession.

(3.) From the aforementioned facts it emerges that the land in dispute was the ownership of the petitioner but was declared surplus. Thereafter, it was allotted to respondent No. 5 on 11/1/1977. Once land has been declared surplus, the same vests in the Government free from all encumbrances and the original big land owner is divested of all rights, title and interest. Thus, whether the land was allotted to respondent No. 5 or to any other person is no concern of the big land owner. In my considered opinion the challenge to the order of allotment at the behest of the petitioner was not maintainable at all. The same logic would apply also to the order passed by learned Financial Commissioner. This is apart from the fact that the challenge is highly belated.