NANAK SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 3883 to 3889 and 5014 of 1986 as all these writ petitions have been preferred for quashing orders dated 29th January, 1962, 14th March, 1962, 28th September, 1976 and 18th March, 1985 (Annexures, P1, P-2, P-3 and P-6) passed by Special Collector, Punjab, Allotment Authority, Kaithal and Financial Commissioner, Haryana respectively.

(2.) In all the petitions, the claim of the petitioners is that they were old tenants under the big land-owners Kanwar Sharanvir Singh and Kanwar Danbir Singh. The case of surplus area relating to the land owned by Kanwar Sharanvir Singh was decided by the Special Collector, Punjab, on 29th January, 1962 whereas the case relating to the assessment of surplus area with Kanwar Danbir Singh was decided on 14th March, 1962 by the Special Collector, Punjab vide orders, Annexures P-1 and P-2, owners were held to be entitled to 50 O.A. whereas land -measuring 20.53 O.A. was held to be with the tenants and was thus declared tenants' permissible area. After excluding the area of the land-owner and area of the tenants, land measuring 184.13 O.A. was declared as surplus in the case of Kanwar Sharanvir Singh. In the case of Kanwar Danbir Singh, it was held that he was entitled to permissible area of 42.48 O.A. i.e. 30 S.A. Land measuring 20.53 O.A. was held to be tenants' permissible area. As a result thereof, 24.65 O.A. was declared as surplus. In pursuance of orders, annexures P-1 and P-2 passed by the Special Collector, Punjab, declaring surplus area, the Allotment Authority, Kaithal, vide order, Annexure P-3, allotted a land which was declared surplus under the Haryana Utilisation of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 1976 Scheme) to the private respondents who are resettled tenants. This order was challenged by the petitioners in the year 1982 on the ground that they being the tenants and having purchased the land of big landowners, Kanwar Sharanvir Singh and Kanwar Danbir Singh, vide registered sale deeds executed during the period 24th April, 1970 and 8th April, 1975, the order dated 28th September, 1976, Annexure P-3 of the Allotment Authority, Kaithal, is illegal. They further claimed that their right of allotment under the 1976 Scheme should be recognised as preferential. They also claimed that though the Special Collector has found, as a matter of fact, that area measuring 20.53 O.A. was under the tenants and was declared as tenants' permissible area but no notice was ever served on them of those proceedings and thus the order is void ab initio. The Collector, Kurukshetra, vide order dated 24th August, 1982 dismissed the appeal being barred by time. The petitioners against the order of the Collector, Kurukshetra, filed appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, who vide order dated 26th July, 1983 held that no appeal lay in such cases. However, the appeal filed by the petitioners was treated as revision and the same was dismissed. The petitioners took the matter before the Financial Commissioner, who vide order dated 18th March, 1985 dismissed the revision petitions. Learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana was of the view that the State shall be entided to the surplus area which has been sold after 30th July, 1958 and moreover as per clarification issued by Government vide Memo No. 5726AR(LA)-76/28819 dated 15th September, 1976, any sale beyond 15th April, 1976 shall not be a valid transaction and any such sale effected after that date shall be deemed to have been vested in the Government with effect from the appointed day. He thus concurred with the decision of the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and the Collector, Kurukshetra. The orders of the Collector, Kurukshetra, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner and that of Special Collector, relating to the assessment of surplus area with Kanwar Sharanvir Singh and Kanwar Danbir Singh have been impugned by the petitioners in the present writ petitions. The petitioners have also filed additional affidavit along with copies of the jamabandis in order to show that they or their predecessors-in-interest were in possession of the land in dispute much prior to 15th April, 1953 i.e. before the enforcement of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 1953 Act.)

(3.) Mr. Anand Swarup, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that though in his orders dated 29th January, 1962 and 14th March, 1962, the Special Collector while deciding the case of the assessment of the surplus area of the big land-owners has held that the land measuring 20.53 O.A was in possession of the tenants but no notice of the same was ever served on the petition and thus the order declaring the land under the tenancy of the petitioners as surplus in the hands of Kanwar Sharanvir Singh and Danbir Singh was void ab initio and, nonest in the eye of law. He has further contended that once order declaring the area surplus is held void ab initio and nonest in the eye of law, the order, Annexure P-3 allotting a part of the area declared surplus is also void and nonest in the eye of law. He has also submitted that no notice was served on the petitioners while allotting the land to the private respondents under 1976 Scheme.