PURAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition are to the orders dated 19.06.1993 (Annexure P2 & P3) wherein, land measuring 23 kanals 3 marlas was allotted to respondent No.4 and 23 kanals 8 marlas was allotted to respondent No.5 out of the Nazool land situated in Village Safidon by the Collector, Jind. Further challenge has been laid to the orders dated 16.05.1994 (Annexure P4) wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Commissioner and further upheld by the Financial Commissioner on 11.08.1994 (Annexure P5).

(2.) The pleaded case of the deceased petitioner is that he is a landless Harijan and entitled for the allotment of Nazool land and 3 pieces (taks) of land in Village Safidon had been identified for allotment. The petitioner had been a lessee earlier on the land situated in tak No.1 for the years 1987 to 1990 whereas, respondent No.4 had never been a lessee of tak Nos.1 & 2 whereas respondent No.5 was having 6 kanals 7 marlas of land in his ownership. Applications were invited for allotment of Nazool land in question, on 10.02.1993 and applications were to reach on or before 15.02.1993. The petitioners alongwith respondents No.4 & 5 and 5 other persons, applied for allotment. The District Revenue Officer, vide a report dated 30.04.1993, recommended 11 kanals 13 marlas of land to be allotted to the deceased petitioner and 16 kanals 2 marlas to respondent No.5 and tak No.2 was to be allotted in favour of one Raj Kumar. However, the said report was not approved by the Collector and instead, during the pendency of the allotment proceedings, the land was leased out to respondent No.5 on 17.05.1993, regarding tak No.1 and in favour of respondent No.4 in tak No.2. Thereafter, allotment was done in favour of the said respondents which is now subject matter of challenge.

(3.) In the written statement, filed by respondents No.1 to 3, it was pleaded that it was wrong to say that respondent No.4 had never been a lessee in the land situated in tak No.1 & 2 and she was a lessee in tak No.2 for the year 1993-94. The case was discussed by the District Revenue Officer with the Collector on 07.06.1993 and after getting the report, the case was put up with facts and it was noted that the request for allotment of land was re-examined. As per the report dated 15.06.1993, by the District Revenue Officer, Jind, respondents No.4 & 5 were considered eligible for allotment, as per Rule 3-A of the Pepsu Nazool Land (Transfer) Rules, 1956 (for short, the 'Rules') since the said rule provided that land can be allotted to the present lessee at the time of allotment. Both respondents No.4 & 5 were present lessees and the petitioner's name was not recommended because he was not lessee at the time of allotment. Therefore, the land was allotted to respondents No.4 & 5. The allotment had been made as per the provisions of the Rules and the case of the petitioner was not covered. Respondent No.5 was having some land in his ownership but not in excess to the permissible limit and therefore, he was entitled for allotment. The said allotment had been upheld by the authorities and was, accordingly, justified.