DHANPAT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 7817 to 7820 of 1988 as they arise out of common judgment of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, rendered in R.O.R. No. 308 of 1982-83. In all these cases, the contest is between the allottees and the ejected tenants. The ejected tenants have been found by the Financial Commissioner to be entitled to superior right of allotment. The allotment in favour of the allottees-petitioners has been found by the Financial Commissioner to be contrary to the law inasmuch as the rights of the ejected tenants were ignored. The facts in the present case have been taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 7817 of 1988. In other writ petitions the petitioners are private respondents and they have been held to be ejected tenants by the Financial Commissioner. The ground for challenge in the writ petition is common that the private respondents are ejected tenants and are benami. The brief facts of the case are as under.

(2.) The land of Sarvshri Parkash Singh, Gurdas Singh and other members of their family was declared surplus by the prescribed authority, Sirsa under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 (for short the 'Act'). Prescribed authority, Sirsa declared 831 ordinary kanals of the joint holding of the family as surplus. The land which was declared surplus was measuring about 831 kanals and was allotted to the petitioners by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Sirsa, vide order dated 2.8.1992, Annexure P/1. The ejected tenants of the land owner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order, Annexure P/1, of allotment claiming that ejecting tenants have the preferential right of allotment of the surplus area. The land has been illegally allotted to the writ petitioners. The Collector, vide his order dated 23.11.1982, Annexure P/2, dismissed the appeal.

(3.) Respondent No. 6 being dissatisfied with the order of the Collector filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Hissar Division, Hissar. The Commissioner also dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 28.4.1983, Annexure P/3. Thereafter respondent No. 6, filed a further revision petition, before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, accepted the revision petition on 9.7.1988, Annexure P/4. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, held that respondent No. 6 was ejected tenant and he had preferential right of allotment of the surplus land according to the scheme made under the Act. Financial Commissioner held that the order of ejectment of respondent No. 6 was not collusive. The findings of the authorities below holding the order of ejectment to be collusive was held to be erroneous. The Financial Commissioner after setting aside the order of allotment remanded the case to the prescribed authority with the direction that he will re-allot the area accepting the claims of the petitioner as tenants of 'C' category. He also held that allotment was basically wrong and therefore it is liable to be set aside.