DALEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 11.01.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 16338 of 1995) (since (DALEEP SINGH AND OTHERS V. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS, 2012 166 PunLR 77) filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 9.6.1994 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana; and the order dated 29.8.1995 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Ellenabad under the Haryana Ceiling on Lands Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been dismissed. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) The appellant Daleep Singh was a big land owner as he was owning 922 (canals 12 marlas of 'C' category of land as on 24.1.1971 - the prescribed date fixed under the Act. On that date, his mother Smt. Dakhan was owning 5 kanals 8 marlas of 'C' category of land. On 14.8.1976 the appellant filed his declaration form under Section 9(1) of the Act before the Prescribed Authority showing himself, his wife and three children as family and, thus, claiming one primary unit. Undisputedly, Smt. Dakhan, who was a small land owner on the notified date as owning only 5 kanals 8 marlas of land, did not file any declaration form under the Act. However, when the declaration form filed by the appellant came up for consideration before the Prescribed Authority, Smt. Dakhan moved an application along with her affidavit that the declaration form filed by her son (appellant herein) should be deemed to have been filed by her being head of family, and submitted that the surplus area with regard to total land measuring 928 kanals (922 Kanals 12 Marlas + 5 Kanals 8 Marlas) be determined after giving one unit to her and one unit to her son (appellant). The Prescribed Authority accepted her prayer. Out of the total land, both Smt. Dakhan and Daleep Singh were allowed to retain 864 kanals of 'C' category land and the remaining land of 64 kanals of 'C' category was declared surplus vide order dated 5.4.1984.

(3.) When the Commissioner, on the basis of the inspection note dated 20.2.1986 to 27.2.1987 submitted by Tehsildar Agrarian, came to know about the aforesaid illegal order passed by the Prescribed Authority, he recommended to the Financial Commissioner to set aside the said order in exercise of suo motu power under Section 18(6) of the Act. On the recommendation of the Commissioner, the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 9.6.1994, in exercise of suo motu power under Section 18(6) of the Act, set aside the order dated 5.4.1984. The Financial Commissioner held that the Prescribed Authority in utter disregard to the statutory provisions of Section 3(f) of the Act, gravely erred while treating the declaration filed by the appellant as has been filed by his mother and then granting her the benefit of two units, i.e., one for herself and the other for her son, resulting into loss to the surplus pool. It was held that the declaration form submitted by appellant Daleep Singh should have been considered to be filed by him and after deducting the area of one primary unit i.e. 432 kanals, the remaining area of 490 kanals 12 marlas of 'C' category land should have been declared as surplus, but the Prescribed Authority had adopted a totally wrong procedure in declaring only an area of 64 kanals of 'C' category land as surplus area. After setting aside the order, the Financial Commissioner remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority for calculating the surplus area afresh after allowing one unit of permissible area to Daleep Singh, the big land owner and his family, and thereafter he be given opportunity to select his permissible area of one unit.