CHIMAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the petitioner has challenged the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 24.5.93 whereby he remanded the surplus area case of the petitioner. At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that the Commissioner had remanded back two matters, one regarding a compromise/collusive decree dated 26.12.1969 and the second regarding the sales made by the petitioner. As regards the collusive decree dated 26.12.1969 learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the land under the said decree has rightly been decided to be added to the holding of the transferee and she has no objection to that. Consequently as regards the land transferred by the decree dated 26.12.1969 the surplus area case of the transferee be reexamined after including this transferred land in his holding. With regard to the land which was sold away learned counsel has argued that the petitioner was a sonless widow and had sold various parcels of land between 1973 and 1979 for the marriage of her daughter and to maintain herself since the land could not be properly utilised by her. In fact the prescribed authority personally went to the village Ahmedpur Darewala and came to the conclusion after examining not only the record but witnesses that the sales made by the petitioner were bona fide sales. She has further argued that this order was passed on 30.08.1982 but the State challenged the same in a revision after more than 5 years and the Financial Commissioner by the very cryptic impugned order has remanded the case back for fresh decision. Learned AAG has argued that if sales made after the appointed day are permitted to be ignored the entire ceiling law would be defeated.

(2.) SECTION 8 of The Haryana Ceiling on Lands Holding Act, 1972 is as follows: - -

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhupendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others, reported as : AIR 1981 SC 1157 and Brijendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others reported as : AIR 1981 SC 636. In both these cases their lordships were dealing with analogous provisions of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and held as follows: -