RAM PARTAP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When thousands of landless persons are seeking their claims to be settled on surplus land, certain big land owners are making their persistent efforts to retain the surplus land and to defeat the very purpose and object of the Land Reforms legislation. Present case is one of such example, where a big land owner had endeavored to save his surplus land from declaration by adopting dubious means.

(2.) Ram Partap, petitioner herein, who was a big land owner has questioned the order dated 19.10.2000 (Annexure P -3), passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, respondent No.3 herein, who by invoking the suo moto powers under Sec. 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1972) set aside the order dated 13.7.1979 (Annexure P -1) of the Prescribed Authority, Dabwali, vide which the benefit of two units was given to the petitioner, one for himself and the other for his alleged adopted son. The petitioner filed declaration form on 16.8.1976 to the Prescribed Authority, Dabwali in terms of Sec. 9 of the Act of 1972, in which he claimed a separate unit for one Vishnu, alleging him to be his adopted son. In support of his averment, he filed the registered adoption deed dated 9.1,1979. In the form, age of the said adopted son was shown as 26 years, but his date of birth was not mentioned. The Prescribed Authority, vide his order dated 13.7.1979 (Annexure P -1) granted him the benefit of two units of permissible area equivalent to 68.74 ordinary acres of command area and the remaining 20.17 ordinary acres of command area was declared surplus. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the department that a fraud was played upon the Government by a big land owner, as the benefit of second unit was wrongly granted to him on account of alleged adoption by him. It was brought to the knowledge of respondent No. 1 that the Prescribed Authority, without properly verifying the facts stated by the land owner in the declaration form gave the benefit of two units to him. A fraud was played upon the department by the petitioner by showing Vishnu as his adopted son, when actually he was never adopted nor he was adult on the appointed day i.e. 24.1.1971. When these facts were brought to the notice of respondent No. 1, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in exercise of suo moto powers under Sec. 18(6) of the Act of 1972 for setting aside the illegal and fraudulent order of the Prescribed Authority. Petitioner appeared before respondent No. 1 and contested the suo moto reference. After hearing the petitioner and the State counsel, vide order dated 19.10.2000 (Annexure P -3), respondent No. 1 set aside the order dated 13.7.1979 (Annexure P -1), passed by the Prescribed Authority and remanded the matter to him for redetermining the surplus area of the petitioner. It was found that the alleged adoption was fake. The adoption deed was alleged to be executed on 9.1.1979, which was after the appointed day i.e. 24.1.1971. The adoption deed was got executed just few months prior to the passing of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. Secondly, it was found that Vishnu, the alleged adopted son of the petitioner, was not major on the appointed day, therefore, he was not entitled for a separate unit. As per the school certificate of said Vishnu, which is available on the record, his date of birth has been shown as 15.12.1954. If this date is taken into consideration, then he was not major on the appointed day. Regarding the objections of the petitioner for invoking suo moto power after lapse of 20 years, it was held that there is no limitation for invoking suo moto power under Sec. 18(6) of the Act of 1972, particularly when a fraud was committed upon the department by a big land owner. The aforesaid order dated 19.10.2000 (Annexure P -3) has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) Shri L.N. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner, while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Loku Ram v/s. State of Haryana and Ors., (1999) 123 P.L.R. 590 (S.C.) and decision of this Court in Diwan Hira Lal Kapoor and Ors. v/s. The State of Haryana and Ors., 2002(1) P.L.J. 28 submitted that the Financial Commissioner cannot exercise his suo moto power under Sec. 18(6) of the Act of 1972, after inordinate delay of 20 years, for setting aside an order passed by the Prescribed Authority, which became final and against which no appeal or revision was filed by the department. Regarding the factual finding given in the impugned order, Mr. Verma could not submit much. He mainly pressed his argument only on the point of limitation for exercising the suo motto power by the Financial Commissioner.