MAHABIR PARSHAD Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5518 and 18950 of 1991 as the same orders have been impugned in both the cases. Reference to the facts shall hereinafter be made from Civil Writ petition 5518 of 1991.

(2.) On the date of commencement of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short the Punjab Act), Suraj Mal father of the petitioners, who died on January 16, 1969, was a big landowner as he admittedly owned more than 100 acres of land. Lachhman respondent now represented by his legal representatives, was a tenant under Suraj Mal on an area measuring 219 Kanals 9 Marlas in village Lakhuwana. Suraj Mal neither intimated his selection in the prescribed form or manner to the Patwari/Prescribed Authority of reserved land as envisaged by Section 5 of the Punjab Act nor furnished a declaration supported by an affidavit as required by Section 5-A of the said Act at any time during his life time. On his death, he was succeeded by his two sons, petitioners, in equal shares. The sons of Suraj Mal also did not take any step under the Punjab Act. They, however, filed declaration under the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short the Ceiling Act) after the date of its enforcement and learned Collector by orders dated March 16, 1979 and May 15, 1984, Annexures P-1 and P-2, declared that they were small landowners under the Ceiling Act.

(3.) Lachhman Dass tenant of Suraj Mal who had a right to purchase the land under his tenancy, in terms of Section 18 of the Punjab Act, filed an application for purchase of land under his tenancy on February 1970 obviously, impleading the petitioners as respondents, being the heirs of big landowner, who had died prior to the date of making the application. The application for purchase of land was allowed by learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sirsa on November 5, 1975. On appeal by the petitioners to the Collector, Sirsa, order of learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade allowing purchase application was set aside and the application was kept pending as the status of the landlord had not been determined under the Punjab Act till then and that the application was ordered to be taken up after decision of surplus area case by the Collector. Learned Collector, Sirsa by order dated January 27, 1987, Annexure P-3, directed the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) exercising the powers of Collector, Surplus Area, to decide surplus area case of the petitioners and to take penal action against them under Section 5-C of the Punjab Act. The petitioners took the matter in appeal before learned Commissioner by contending that their father having died on January 16, 1969, the holdings in their hands did not exceed the permissible area and they were consequently covered by the definition of small landowners and that no proceedings had either been taken or pending for declaration of surplus area under the Punjab Act against their father and even if any area had been declared surplus in the hands of the original landowner, the same having not been utilised during his life time, they were entitled to the protection of Section 10-A(b) of the Act being small landowners. It was further pointed out that they had already been declared small landowners by the Prescribed Authority under the Ceiling Act and, therefore, the case of the tenants for purchase could not be re-opened. The appeal, however, was dismissed by learned Commissioner by order dated August 11, 1988, Annexure P-4, by repelling all the contentions. Revision petition at the instance of the petitioners before learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh also did not meet with success. The contention raised by the petitioners before the learned Financial Commissioner was that no proceedings had ever been initiated or were pending either during the life time of their father or even thereafter fill the Ceiling Act came on the statute book and the Punjab Act having been repealed, no proceedings under the said Act could be initiated and the whole exercise in that behalf was void, ab initio and without jurisdiction. Order dated December 11, 1990, Annexure P-5, is the order of learned Financial Commissioner rejecting the contention of the petitioners. Orders Annexures P-3 to P-5 have been impugned in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.