SADHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE order dated 29th December, 1960, a total of 11 units of land was declared surplus in the hands of the petitioner under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act ). The Collector Agrarian thereafter re-determined the matter suo moto without issuing a notice to the petitioner taking into account the fact that some area had been sold by the landowner after 15th April, 1953, which was the date of enforcement of the Act and the said land had been wrongly excluded while determining the surplus area. On re-consideration, a total of about 13 units of land amounting to about 22 standard acres was declared surplus vide order dated 17th February, 1961, Annexure P-2 to the petition. It appears that the petitioner slept over the matter for a long time and ultimately filed an appeal on 9th April, 1979, against Annexure P-2 along with an application for condonation of delay. The plea taken by the petitioner in the application was that he had not been served a notice before the order Annexure P-2 was passed and, as such, had no knowledge of it. The Commissioner vide order dated 11th September, 1979, Annexure P-4 to the petition, dismissed the appeal on the ground that, it was barred by time and that land tax which was required to be deposited before the entertainment of the appeal under section 18 of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1. 972 (hereinafter called the 'haryana Act') had not been deposited. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, who vide order dated 4th March, 1980, Annexure P-5 to the petition, dismissed the same on the ground that it was barred by time as the landowner bad the knowledge of the proceedings that had taken place at the time when the order Annexure P-2 had been made. Aggrieved by the orders Annexures P-4 and P-5 the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition.

(2.) THE primary argument raised by Mr. H. S. Hooda, learned Sr. Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, is that the view of the Collector Agrarian as expressed in Annexure P-2 that all sales of land made by a landowner after 15th April, 1953 were to be held to be bad and liable to be ignored was contrary to the Full Bench of this Court reported as The State of Haryana v. Chandgi, 1981 P. L. J. 494 in which it has been held that on a consideration of Section 8 (1) of the Haryana Act, that transfers made prior to 30th July, 1958 of Land in excess of the permissible area under the Act or the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act could not be ignored while determining surplus area. I find force in the assertion of the learned counsel as, admittedly, this argument was not available to the Collector Agrarian when the order Annexure P-2 was made by him.

(3.) ON the question of a notice and limitation, Mr. Hooda, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that as no notice had been issued to the petitioner at the time when order Annexure P-2 was made, the mere presence of the petitioner which happened to be fortuitous would not take away his entitlement to a notice. He has also urged that the purpose of issue of a notice to a person was to enable him to contest his case effectively and, as such, a prior notice of hearing ought to have been given. Mr. Vasudeva, learned Assistant Advocate-General has urged that vide Annexure R-l filed with the reply, it is clear that the petitioner had been present at the time when the order Annexure P-2 was made and as such, the delay in filing the appeal was inexcusable, and the requirement of a notice to the petitioner also stood satisfied. This argument, in my view, is Hot tenable for the simple reason that prior notice which is envisaged under the law must be given in order to enable a party to effectively i fight out the matter and the mere-coincidental presence of a person does not obviate the necessity of a notice. I am also of the view that even presuming that there was some delay on the part of the petitioner is filing the appeal, it ought to be condoned in view of the fact that valuable property rights of an agriculturist, often not well versed in law, are involved and the matter stands concluded in his favour by Chandgi's case (supra ).