SHANTI DEVI Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM-2909-LPA-2022 Application for condonation of delay of 71 days in refilng the appeal is allowed, in view of the averments made in the application, duly supported by affidavit. Delay of 71 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. CM-2911-LPA-2022 Application under Chapter 1-C, Rule 3, Volume-V of High Court Rules and Orders has been filed for impleading the legal representatives of deceased appellant Shanti Devi, who is stated to have expired on 15/5/2021 leaving behind the legal heirs as mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the application. It has been averred that there are no other legal heirs of the deceased Shanti Devi. Application is duly supported by affidavit of Dilbagh Singh son of deceased Shanti Devi. Accordingly, in view of the averments made in the application, duly supported by the affidavit, the same is allowed and the legal representatives, as mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the application are permitted to pursue the present litigation only. It is made clear that the present order will not be liable to be taken into consideration in any other set of proceedings. CM stands disposed of. LPA-1206-2022 (O&M) Present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dtd. 28/7/2022 wherein CWP No.712 of 2017 filed by the deceased Shanti Devi alongwith Smt. Bhag Devi and others, was dismissed. The only benefit granted was that they were entitled to retain possession of 12 kanals of land, which was purchased by them.

(2.) The learned Single Judge, thus, upheld the orders of ejectment passed by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Hisar dtd. 30/3/2012 (Annexure P-3) which was further duly upheld by the Collector, Hisar on 4/12/2012 (Annexure P-4) and the revision was dismissed on 9/7/2013 (Annexure P-5) by the Commissioner, Hisar Division. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana had also dismissed the revision on 11/8/2016 (Annexure P-9) which were all subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge .

(3.) Counsel has restricted his argument only to the extent that on the basis of Sec. 70 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (for short '1887 Act') the claim for compensation should have been mandatorily dealt with by the authorities below.