MANGAT RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 473, 551, 1821 and 4758 of 1983 as one of the law points involved in all the petitions is common. The facts have, however, been extracted from C. W. P. No. 1821 of 1983 (Mangat Ram v. The Financial Commissioner and Ors. ).

(2.) PETITIONER is land-owner of village Pabnawa, Tehsil and District Kaithal He filed declaration dated August 16, 1976 under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 concerning the land owned by him. The matter came up before the Prescribed Authority, who vide order dated December 8, 1978 held that land measuring 132 kanals 11 marlas owned by him was surplus i. e. beyond the ceiling limit prescribed under the Act aforesaid. This order was challenged by him in Civil Writ Petition No. 2655 of 1980 and vide order dated September 1, 1980 he was permitted to file an appeal before the Collector. The Collector, however, remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority with a direction that the case be decided afresh after giving opportunity to him to produce proof with regard to his two daughters, Roshni and Krishna. It is pleaded that the Prescribed Authority without taking into consideration the primary unit and the additional units permissible under the law, wrongly held that he was entitled to retain 1-1/5 units of 'c Category. It is also pleaded that the Prescribed Authority did not take into consideration the fact, that Jai Parkash son. of petitioner was born on July 8, 1972 and that being so he was entitled to 1/5th additional unit as his permissible area. The matter was taken before the Collector in appeal which was dismissed on May 21, 1981. Still aggrieved, petitioner filed revisions before the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner but no relief was granted to him. In these circumstances, present writ has been filed asking for setting aside the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority, Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner.

(3.) MR. Mehtani, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised number of points but I do not wish to go into all, as the petition deserves to succeed on the point that while considering the ceiling Emit as per the provisions of the Act, unit permissible to a son who was born in between January 24, 1971 and March 24, 1973 had to be taken into consideration. This Court in Jaswant Singh and Ors. v. Punjab Government and Anr. , 1993 P. L. J. 684, while dealing with the precise question, as mentioned above, held as follows: -. .