LAJWANTI Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are the legal representatives of deceased Megh Raj, pray for quashing the impugned order dated 20.4.1983 in which the orders of the lower authorities got merged, on the ground that the same is contrary to the settled principles of law and is based upon mis-construction of Section 8 of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act").

(2.) THE facts, as noticed in the order of the competent authority, are that the report under Rule 6(3) of the relevant Rules, was submitted. The owner and his family members owned land measuring about 415 kanals 16 marlas in village Bhuna as on 24.1.1971. In addition to this 84 kanals 18 marlas of the land was received by the beneficiary by inheritance from their brother Jiwan Dass in the year 1972. In this way, total land owned and possessed by the owners was measuring 500 kanals 12 marlas. The original owner Megh Raj died on 24.10.1979. In the proceedings, which were taken by the concerned department, the prescribed authority, Fatehabad vide order dated 21.5.1981 declared the land surplus in the hands of the owners. This order was challenged by the land owners and the appeal preferred against thereto was also dismissed vide order dated 31.3.1981 and finally, the revision under Section 18(6) of the Act was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on 20.4.1983.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the decree was a collusive one and the Financial Commissioner has correctly held that date of 30.7.1958 was a relevant date to determine the excess land. Two factors that cannot be disputed is that Section 8(1) of the Act is a saving clause to the Scheme of the Act for declaring the land surplus. The bare reading of these provisions shows that quantum of the land is to be specified in terms of the dates indicated in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Section 8(1) of the Act. The judgment of the Full Bench of this Court has not been correctly appreciated by the authorities concerned which clearly stipulates the principles of exemption applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Furthermore, whether the decree is collusive or not, is not a question which can be determined by the authorities concerned. It has not been rejected for the reason that it does not comply with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act if it was a decree created for the first time. The judgment of the Financial Commissioner does not appear to be in conformity with the judgment of the Full Bench (supra) of this Court and it appears that the provisions of the relevant Act have not been appreciated in their correct aspect. There are certain factual matters which need to be commented upon by the authorities.