DHARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of two writ petitions 2009 and 2040 of 1983 in which common questions of law and fact arise. Since arguments were heard in civil writ petition 2009 of 1983 the facts are being taken from this case.

(2.) BALWANT Singh father of the petitioners was a big landowner in village Rudrol, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani. By two registered gift deeds dated 16.10.1956 he transferred all his area in favour of his ten sons who are the petitioners in this case. The Prescribed Authority, Charkhi Dadri under the Pepsu Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (for short the Pepsu Act) ignored transfers made in favour of the petitioners and considering the entire area as the ownership of Balwant Singh, declared 143-5/8 Ordinary Acres of land as surplus in his hands by order dated 8.12.1960. Section 32-E of the Pepsu Act provides that surplus area shall be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government for a public purpose with effect from the date on which possession thereof is taken by or on behalf of the State Government and all rights, title and interest in the surplus land shall vest in the State Government. The compensation to be paid for the land had been determined under Section 32-G of the Pepsu Act and Balwant Singh accepted Rs. 1665.79 as part of the compensation on 22.5.1961. In the year 1977 the petitioners filed an application before the Prescribed Authority under Section 8 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Haryana Act) with a prayer that since the transfer made in their favour was prior to 30.7.1958 the same was valid and could not be ignored by the Prescribed Authority while declaring surplus area in the hands of their father and, therefore, the land be released from the surplus pool. The application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on 2.6.1978 and feeling aggrieved by this order, Dharam Singh one of the petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector, Bhiwani who dismissed the same by order dated 3.1.1979. The petitioners then filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Act challenging the order of the Prescribed Authority and that of the Collector. The learned Financial Commissioner found that since possession of the surplus land had in fact been taken by the State Government on 5.1.1963 the land vested in the State Government in terms of Section 32-E of the Pepsu Act. He also found that the land was allotted to some eligible tenants but they did not take possession of the same and, therefore, the land came in the possession of the petitioners. The Financial Commissioner found that the State Government was the owner of the surplus land and that it was not necessary for it to take possession only through eligible tenants. It was also found that since possession of the surplus land was actually taken by the State Government the protection given by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Haryana Act was not available to the petitioners. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed on 21.3.1983. It is against these orders that the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.