SOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 04.07.2013, the following order was passed: - -

(2.) IN my opinion, from the orders reproduced above, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not make the necessary deposit within the prescribed time because in the form US -3, no price has been mentioned and learned Deputy Advocate General is not in a position to reveal from the record on which date, the petitioner was asked to pay the price. In view of the absence of any material to show that when the petitioner was informed about the price which he had to pay, the benefit thereof has to go to the petitioner and it has to be held that there was no delay in the deposit made. It is not out of place to reiterate here that the cancellation order was on the different ground viz. the fact that the allottee had died on 2nd July, 1992 and the present petitioner had played a fraud with the Government. Section 15(5) of The Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, has been quoted in the order dated 4th July, 2013 (supra) and a perusal thereof reveals that on the deposit of the first installment allottee shall be deemed to have become the owner. In this case, it is admitted that the first nine installments had been paid before the death of Gopal, thus he had become the owner of the land and the act of issuance of form US -4 would be merely a clerical act which would not have any impact.