RAM NIWAS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length.

(2.) IT has been vehemently argued by Mr. Goyal, learned senior counsel that the Financial Commissioner was not competent to invoke suo motu powers under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972, after a period of 18 years. It has been further argued by the learned counsel that the Financial Commissioner has erred in holding that the petitioner had committed a fraud on the government while intimating number and ages of his children. In any event, the learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence on the record to show that the petitioners had committed any fraud. The earlier orders do not suffer from any illegality and had been acted upon for the last 18 years. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Loku Ram v. State of Haryana and others, 2000(1) RCR(Civil) 141 (SC) : 1999(1) PLJ 1.

(3.) AFTER noticing the aforesaid submissions, the learned Financial Commissioner has given findings of fact. She has considered the evidence placed on record. Even verbal as well as written arguments put forward by both the sides have been taken into consideration. The matter had been remanded back to the Prescribed Authority by this Court in C.W.P. No. 4675 of 1981 with a direction that the case may be decided afresh after giving the landowner adequate opportunity to establish number and ages of his children.