DALEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was listed for hearing alongwith the bunch of seven other writ petitions as common question of law arose in all these petitions. This petition was, however, segregated and put up for rehearing by noticing some distinctive features in this case. The issue of law, which arises in this case and the other petitions relates to the delay on the part of the State to invoke revisional jurisdiction of the Financial Commissioner under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short, "the Act") for setting-aside the order passed by the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority in this case has also held that there could be no objection to the declaration furnished by Dalip Singh, petitioner, for being treated as having been furnished by his mother, Dakhan, and decided the surplus area accordingly vide order dated 5.4.1984, The prescribed authority, thus, allowed one primary unit of permissible area to Dakhan and one separate unit for her adult son, Dalip Singh (petitioner). Against this order, Commissioner, Hisar Division, on the basis of inspection note dated 20.2.1986 to 27.2.1987 submitted by Tehsildar Agrarian on the process of land reforms work in Sirsa Sub Division, reopened the surplus area case of the petitioner and made reference to the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, vide memo No. 2125 dated 26.6.1987, praying for action under Section 18(6) of the Act and for setting-aside the impugned order dated 5.4.1984 passed by the prescribed authority. On this basis, the State filed a revision petition in the year 1987 in the Court of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, raising various contentions against the impugned order dated 5.4.1984. The Financial Commissioner thereafter decided to allow the said revision petition on 9.6.1994 and remanded the case back to the prescribed authority with a direction to calculate the surplus area afresh after allowing one unit of permissible area to Dalip Singh, petitioner and his family and permit him to select permissible area of one unit. Thereupon, the prescribed authority has allowed one unit on permissible area to Dalip Singh and thereby has declared 490 kanals and 12 marlas of area as surplus on 29.8.1995. The petitioner accordingly has challenged order dated 9.6.1994 (Annexure P-5) and consequential order dated 29.8.1995 (Annexure P-6), contending that these are grossly arbitrary, capricious, illegal, without jurisdiction, unjust and inequitable.

(2.) The background and the facts leading to passing of impugned orders may now be noticed.

(3.) Aad Ram was the head of the family and Dalip Singh (petitioner) used to live with his parents. On demise of Aad Ram, his widow, Dakhan, became the head of the family and required to furnish her declaration under Section 9(1) of the Act to the prescribed authority. She was to give particulars of her own land as also the land owned by the separate unit i.e. her adult son, Dalip Singh, petitioner, living with her in the prescribed form and in the manner stating therein her selection of the land not exceeding in aggregate the permissible area, which she desired to retain. This was in terms of subsection (1) and (2) of Section 9 of the Act. It is averred that for want of proper legal guidance, Dalip Singh, petitioner, who was adult on the appointed date i.e. 21.1.1971 and was living with his parents, himself furnished the declaration on 13.8.1976, showing himself, his wife and three minor children as members of his family. As per the petitioner, Dalip Singh, being adult on the appointed date and living with his mother, was not required to or entitled to furnish any declaration. His mother, being head of the family, after the demise of her husband, was alone competent to furnish the declaration, claiming one unit of permissible area for herself and separate unit for adult son, Dalip Singh, petitioner. Instead, Dalip Singh, petitioner, himself submitted the declaration form under erroneous impression that he being major was required to himself furnish the declaration. Having realised this mistake, Dakhan moved an application on 17.1.1984 before the prescribed authority for being made a party to the proceedings and for treating the declaration furnished by herself. It is urged that Naib Tehsildar, Surplus, representing the State raised no objection to the prayer so made by Dakhan to treat the declaration furnished by her son, Dalip Singh, as furnished by her. It is in this background that the prescribed authority passed the order dated 5.4.1984, which was set-aside by the Financial Commissioner while invoking suo-motu jurisdiction under Section 18(6) of the Act.