CHET RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment, I propose to dispose of five Civil Writ Petition (Nos. 1439 to 1443 of 1983) as concededly the legal position which obtains in all these petitions is the same "as to whether the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 does or does not envisage the concept of Tenants Permissible Area ?" The facts are taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 1439 of 1983.

(2.) THE petitioners were tenants under Kanwar Bhan-respondent No. 5. The Sub Divisional Magistrate (Civil) Fatehabad, exercising the powers of Prescribed Authority vide order dated 26.5.1979 copy Annexure P-1, declared 607 Kanals 2 Marlas of land of respondent No. 5 under 'C' category as surplus area under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (in short the Ceiling Act or Haryana Act). The said order was passed ex parte. The petitioners moved application for getting the ex parte order set-aside. The said application was also dismissed by the abovesaid Prescribed Authority. However, the Additional Collector, Hissar accepted the appeal filed by the petitioners and remanded the case vide his order dated 31.3.1982 for fresh decision after affording an opportunity to the petitioners. Thereafter, the Prescribed Authority after hearing both the sides, vide order dated 15.10.1981, copy Annexure P-4 declared 598 Kanals 7 Marlas of 'C' category as surplus land with the land owner Kanwar Bhan instead of 607 Kanals 2 Marlas for the reason that a sale of 5 Kanals 11 Marlas on 4.4.1972 was treated as a genuine sale by the land owner as it was sold before his land was declared as surplus and as such the same was taken out of the purview of surplus area. The matter then came up in appeal before the Collector, Hissar, which was also dismissed vide order dated 30.6.1982, Annexure P-5. Vide order dated 13.9.1982, Annexure P-7, the review filed by the petitioners also met the same fate. Hence the present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders Annexures P-2, P-4, P-5 and P-7 respectively passed by respondents No. 2 to 4.

(3.) PURSUANT to the notice, Sub Divisional Officer, Fatehabad has filed the written statement on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4. The stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioners are not entitled to the tenant's permissible area as there is no such provision in the Ceiling Act; that respondent No. 5 was not a big landowner under the Ceiling Act; that the petitioners fall in category 'C' under the Haryana Utilization of Surplus Area and other Area Scheme, 1976 (for short the Surplus Area Scheme) and have already been allotted the land to which they were entitled.