RAMJI LAL Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a resident of village Bani tehsil and district Sirsa. He has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders Annexures P/1 to P/4 passed by the authorities under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) determining the surplus land in his hands. It is alleged in the petition that Nadu Ram father of the petitioner was owner of agricultural land measuring 1064 Kanals 10 Marlas of 'C' category equivalent to 678 ordinary Kanals. Nadu Ram aforesaid died in the year 1958. Succession with regard to his estate thus opened in the year 1958 and the land was inherited by the petitioner and mutation with regard to it was sanctioned in the name of the petitioner alone. The Act came into force in the year 1972 and the appointed day was fixed to be 24.1.1971. Petitioner filed the declaration under section 9 of the Act which was verified by the Revenue as well as Agrarian/surplus authorities and it was found that on the appointed day i.e. 24.1.1971, the petitioner held 678 ordinary kanals equivalent to 1064 Kanals 10 Marlas of 'C' category land. Petitioner claimed one primary unit, that is for himself, one additional unit for his mother and a separate unit for his children. It was stated that on the death of his mother succeeded to the estate and became owner of half of her husband's estate and that by some mistake the land was mutated in his favour. It was stated that his mother was entitled to a separate unit for herself and that his children were entitled to an additional unit. This plea of the petitioner was rejected by Sub-Divisional Officer (N)-cum-Prescribed Authority, Sirsa on 15.10.1980. It was held that his mother was not entitled to. Petitioner also produced two decrees of civil Courts dated 9.1.1974 and 12.10.1974 and stated that by way of these decrees, Smt. Dullo Devi was declared the owner of 413 kanals 4 Marla as out of the land of the applicant. On behalf the respondents, it was stated that position had to be seen on the of pointed day i.e. 24.1.1971 and, therefore, the decrees obtained in the year 1974 had to be ignored under section 12(4) of the Act, plea taken by the petitioner was declined and it was held that after the death of his father, petitioner had succeeded to his entire estate and the land had been allotted in his favour. Mother did not claim any share for nearly 15 years and the plea taken by the petitioner that his mother had succeeded to the estate of his father was not bone fide; that the plea had been taken only to defeat the purpose of the Act. Plea regarding the additional unit for his children was rejected by the authorities below on the ground that the petitioner facted to prove the age of those children and that the children have been born prior to the appointed day. The order was upheld by the Commissioner and the Collector and finally approved by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 16.3.1982 Annexure P4 to the writ petition. Petitioner being aggrieved has come to his Court.

(2.) In the written statement filed by the State of Haryana, it has been stated that father of the petitioner had died before 4942 which is clearly borne out from mutation No. 543 dated 22.2.1943 which was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and his brother Inder. It was stated that the orders passed by the authorities below were correct and in accordance with law. An application was also moved on behalf of added respondents No. 5 and 10 that they be impleaded as parties which was allowed and the added respondents No. 5 to 10 have filed their separate written statements. It was stated by them that the added respondents have been allotted the surplus land and have been handed over actual possession thereof.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties at length.