CHAND Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not disputed that the petitioner's total holding of land on 15th April, 1953, i.e. the date of commencement of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to 1953 Act), was 46.19 Standard Acres, situate in village Atela, District Kurukshetra. Later at the time of consolidation of holdings the total holding of the petitioner came to 68.24 Standard Acres on the basis that be had improved the land in the intervening period. Vide order dated 14th June, 1960, the Collector, taking the total holding of the petitioner as 68.24 Standard Acres declared 24.55 Standard Acres as surplus area. The petitioner had made no reservation nor any selection of any area as required under the 1953 Act. There was a tenant on the petitioner's land cultivating 13.69 Standard Acres of land taken on lease for 20 years. The tenant was there even on 15th April, 1953. Leaving an area of 30 Standard Acres with the petitioner and excluding 13.69 Standard Acres which was under the cultivation of the tenant, the remaining area i.e. 24.55 Standard Acres, as stated above was declared are surplus.

(2.) The further case of the petitioner is that the Special Collector without issuing any notice to the petitioner, pointed out to Collector (Agrarian) that the area under lease with the tenant should have been declared as surplus. Accordingly, Collector (Agrarian) Kaithal, reviewed the order of his predecessor dated 14th June, 1960 (Copy Annexure P-2) and declared 13.69 Standard Acres more as surplus with the petitioner vide order dated 17th October, 1963 (Copy Annexure P-3). According to the petitioner, no notice had been given to the petitioner by the Collector (Agrarian) and no sanction had been obtained by him from the Commissioner to review the earlier order.

(3.) Under Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter called as the area which had been declared as surplus under the 1953 Act vested in the State Government. It may be observed here that as far as the physical possession is concerned, the petitioner has remained in possession of the area declared surplus till date. (The motion Bench had granted stay in the year 1980).