SUNDER DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The crucial question that arises in this case is the validity of divorce by custom of parties belonging to Hisar District. This had an immediate meaning to the computation of property that stood in the name of wife, who was said to have been divorced for assessment of holdings under Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1972 (hereinafter called the Act). If the property held by the wife were to be included in the holdings of the husband which normally would be the case, since the definition of "family" includes the property held by the spouse, the point which has been answered is whether the authorities were correct in concluding that the property held by the wife could not have been excluded in the manner sought for by the husband and by the representatives of the wife.

(2.) The writ petition is brought at the instance of a person claiming to be the beneficiary under a Will that was executed by Lalo Bai. The case is under the proceedings of the Act reckoning the holdings to be made in the hands of Ram Chand which was decided by the Prescribed Authority, Dabwali, under Annexure P-7, dated 27.01.1986. He was said to be a small landowner and it was originally held that he held no area in surplus. There had been no appeal filed against it, but a revision was undertaken after a period of 3 1/2 years by the State when the Financial Commissioner passed an order purporting to exercise jurisdiction under Section 18(6) of the Act. He passed the order on 06.04.1990 and remitted the matter to the Prescribed Authority with a direction to club the land held by the petitioner, who,claimed his right to the property under a bequest term from the wife of Ram Chand and he directed that the computation would have to be made again.

(3.) The petitioner's contention is (i) the power of revision exercised by the Financial Commissioner after a period of 3 1/2 years was not justified. There was no reason why the action could not be taken earlier. The State had allowed the order passed by the Prescribed Authority to become final and there was no justification for reopening the issue. This objection, I do not think is very potent, for, we have to see that when an authority had passed an order of what he believed to be on an assumption that the property held by the wife would require to be excluded because there was a divorce and the issue was whether such a divorce could be given effect to, it was surely a matter where the authority which had come by necessary information was giving an opportunity to the alleged owner and proceeded to dispose of the case. I would not find that there is any serious prejudice also caused, for, after all the petitioner has been given an opportunity to explain his own case and a decision has been taken in his presence. I, therefore, reject the plea that there has been any undue delay on the part of the State.