PURAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.6475 of 2014

(2.) CWP No.832 of 1993

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that prior to 1961 petitioner was owner of 370 bighas 15 biswas of land situated in the revenue estate of village Batta, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind. Out of this land an area of 90 bighas 15 biswas comprised in khasra Nos.3844-2985, 3982-3903 min. 3983 was declared surplus vide order dated 8.2.1961 passed by Collector Agrarian, Sangrur, under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter called 'Pepsu Act'). After consolidation, petitioner was given new killa numbers of rect. Nos.209, 210, 211, 212, 267 and 282 in lieu of area comprised of khasra nos.3844-2985 and 3982-3903 min. The declared surplus area was never utilized nor it was allotted to anybody. It remained under the cultivating possession of the petitioner throughout till 24.01.1971 when his son namely Vijaypal became entitled to one more unit of land on attaining majority. The date of birth of Vijaypal Singh is shown as 04.08.1957 in the certificate issued by the Government High School Batta, as such on the appointed day as defined in Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter called 'the Land Ceiling Act'), Vijaypal Singh became entitled to one unit area of land as permissible area. The area declared surplus in the hands of petitioner did not vest in the State Government due to its non-utilization. The Land Ceiling Act came into force w.e.f. 22.12.1972. Since the area remained in the hands of the petitioner, on 12.3.1982 petitioner made an application to the Prescribed Authority, Narwana that his son-Vijaypal Singh had attained majority and separated from the petitioner. Further, that on the 'appointed day' i.e. 24.01.1971, the petitioner owned the land within the permissible limits under the Land Ceiling Act and prayed for cancellation of order dated 08.02.1961 passed by the Collector Agrarian declaring 90 bighas 15 biswas of land as surplus under the Pepsu Act and for exclusion of the said area from surplus pool. The application moved by the petitioner was accompanied by copies of khasra girdawaris showing that land in question remained in petitioner's possession and it had never been utilized by the State Government. The Prescribed Authority after obtaining the report of Naib Tehsildar, Agrarian allowed the application of the petitioner vide order dated 03.01.1983 thereby excluding 90 bighas 15 biswas of land of the petitioner from the surplus pool. After seven years of passing of the order dated 03.01.1983, Financial Commissioner, Haryana, in exercise of power under Section 18(6) of the Land Ceiling Act, has set aside the order dated 03.01.1983 passed by the Prescribed Authority and restored the position as obtained in pursuance to the order passed by the Collector, Agrarian on 08.02.1961, vide impugned order dated 24.08.1990 (Annexure P-3). Now, impugned order(Annexure P-3) has been challenged on the ground that it is illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and as such is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that power under Section 18 (6) of the Land Ceiling Act, can be exercised within a reasonable period and it cannot be exercised at any time. If the Financial Commissioner is allowed to exercise such power at his whims and fancies, then any order passed by subordinate authorities will never attain finality. Proceeding under suo motu power after seven years, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be considered within a reasonable time. Since the possession of the land remained with the petitioner and his son, provisions of Section 32 FF of Pepsu Act are not applicable. Further, once the new Act has come into being, surplus area is required to be determined afresh. Another important feature is that consolidation has taken place, which has resulted into converting the land from bigha/biswas to kanal/marlas, which is also required to be considered for determination of surplus area.