HARMESH LAL Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant order proposes to dispose of two writ petitions filed by the same petitioner against the same respondents, bearing CWP Nos. 1481 and 1521 of 2013. However, for the facility of reference, facts are being culled out from CWP No. 1481 of 2013. Feeling aggrieved against the orders dated 28.3.2012 (Annexure P-10), whereby the order dated 21.4.2010 (Annexure P- 8), passed by respondent No.2 and also the order dated 17.5.2006 (Annexure P-6), were upheld, accepting the appeal of respondent No.5, petitioners have approached this Court, by way of these writ petitions, invoking its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing of the above said impugned orders.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, which are hardly in dispute, are that surplus area case of the big land owner, namely Ram Niranjan son of Shri Devi Dutt, was decided by the prescribed authority, vide order dated 27.2.1979, declaring 174 kanals of 'C' category land as surplus, in the hands of big land owner. Thereafter, the surplus land was to be utilised as per the provisions of Haryana Utilisation Scheme, 1976 ( 'Scheme of 1976' for short). It is also not disputed that surplus land which was available for utilisation in view of the above orders, was situated within the revenue estate of village Farwai Khurd, Tehsil and District Sirsa, which is the village of respondent No.5. The prescribed authority, without meticulously following the relevant provisions of the Scheme of 1976 and giving preference to the eligible evicted tenants of village Farwai Khurd, eligible for allotment under the Scheme of 1976, allotted the land in question to one Daulat Ram-predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, who was resident of village Maujdeen, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.

(3.) It is also not in dispute that village of the petitioner was at a distance of about 30 kilometers from village Farwai Khurd. It was further alleged by respondent No.5 that prescribed authority did not issue any notice to the eligible tenants, including respondent No.5, before allotting the land in favour of Daulat Ram. It was also alleged that Munadi was not conducted in the village because of which, the eligible tenants of village Farwai Khurd could not come to know about it. However, on the other side it was alleged that Munadi was conducted on 4.5.1996 and the order of allotment dated 15.5.1996 was passed in favour of Daulat Ram, when nobody came forward from the village.