DHAN RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine will dispose of Civil Writs Nos. 3947, 3948 and 3949 of 1971 as common questions of law and fact arise in all these petitions. In order to decide the controversy that was raised before me, certain facts may be noticed, which I am narrating from Civil Writ No. 3947 of 1971.

(2.) The Petitioner is a resident of village Nathusari Kalan, Tehsil Sirsa, District Hissar. His land was assessed under Sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') and 106.50 ordinary acres equivalent to 21.24 standard acres were declared surplus by the Collector, Surplus Area, Sirsa, district Hissar, Respondent No. 2, vide his order dated August 9, 1963 (copy Annexure 'A' to the petition). The land of the Petitioner was declared surplus in village Naranwali in old khasra numbers as at the time of the declaration of the surplus area, the consolidation proceedings had not finalized. The only other fact that needs mention is that the area which was declared surplus in the hands of the Petitioner was utilized for the resettlement of the ejected tenants, vide orders dated May 24, 1971, June 4, 1971 and June 5, 1971, contained in Annexures 'B', 'C' and 'D', true translations of which have been attached with the petitions as Annexures B-l, C-l and D-l respectively. It is the legality and propriety of these orders which have been challenged by way of this petition on various grounds.

(3.) Written statement in the shape of an affidavit has been filed by Shri I.D. Swami, H.C.S., Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector, Surplus Area, Sirsa, in which the material allegations made in the petition have been controverted. Two preliminary objections have also been taken but it is not necessary to make reference to those objections as the same were not pressed at the time of arguments. The private Respondents have not put in appearance and, as such, they have been proceeded against ex parte.