GURDIAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order dated 21.5.1980 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana vide which permission to review the order dated 1.2.1960 passed by the Collector which was sought to be reviewed by his successor on review application filed by the petitioner-landlord, was declined.

(2.) Brief facts of the case need to be enumerated first. Surplus area case of the petitioner was decided by the Collector, Agrarian Sonepat on 1.2.1960. Land measuring 57 kanals 4 marlas belonging to the petitioner was declared surplus under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tensures Act, 1953. When the land so declared surplus was allotted to the to the eligible tenants and possession thereof was to be taken the petitioner filed a review application wherein besides other things, he averred that four standard areas 1/2 unit of his land was Shamlat Panna and 14 units was Banjar Qadim and the same had been wrongly included in his holdings. His case was that Shamlat Panna land has already been merged in the Panchayat Deh and it could not be treated as his land. Likewise it was his case that 14 units of Banjar Qadim land does not come under the definition of land itself and as such could not be included in computing the surplus area of the petitioner. Collector Agrarian, after hearing the matter, vide his order dated 9.11.1978 sought permission to review the order passed by his predecessor. The Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat recommended that the case be sent to the Financial Commissioner for revision under Sec. 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tensures Act, 1953. Again the Collector vide his report dated 14.5.1978, submitted the case to the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt., for giving permission for review. However, when the matter came up before the Financial Commissioner, permission to review, as sought by the Collector was declined vide orders dated 21.5.1980 which, as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, has been challenged in the present petition.

(3.) The main contention of the petitioner before the learned Financial Commissioner was that Form 'F' which is necessarily required to be prepared while passing an order declaring the land to be surplus was not served upon him. On this crucial question the Financial Commissioner held that the dispatch of Form 'F' was a mere formality and the right to appeal in such cases accrued from the date of the declaration of the surplus area. In the manner aforesaid the review was declined on the ground that there was no question for condoning the delay of 17 years in filing the review application. The Financial Commissioner for the aforesaid finding relied upon his own judgment in R.O.R. No. 118/1979-80 Tek Ram Vs. State which I have decided, I have set aside the decision of the Financial Commissioner. Obviously the only contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that service order of Form 'F' is not a mere formality and the order of declaration of surplus area is incomplete till such time statement in Form 'F' is also prepared and served upon the landowner.