RAGHBAR DAYAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Anand Sarup Mittal, has with great lucidity confined his argument to two clear cut propositions. It, therefore, suffices to advert to the facts directly relevant thereto.

(2.) Raghbar Dayal and Bhagwat Sarup, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, along with respondent 16 Smt. Gauran were the owners of agricultural land measuring 306 Standard Acres 8-1/2 Units situate in six different villages prior to the year 1952. It is averred that petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 made an application to the Consolidation Officer in October, 1952, that they had effected partition between the members of their joint family and prayed that the mutation be entered to give effect to the same. It is the case that the Consolidation Officer passed an order on this application an April 5, 1973, and upon this basis mutation No. 600 dated the 2nd of May, 1953, was entered by virtue of which the land belonging to Raghbar Dayal petitioner was mutated in the names of his wife and two sons in equal shares and the land previously belonging to Bhagwat Sarup was mutated in the names of the latter's wife and his three sons in equal shares. In the surplus area proceedings that followed, the Collector, Rohtak, vide his order dated the 12th of February, 1963 (Annexure "A" to the petition) held that there was no surplus land in the hands of petitioners Nos. 1 to 8 because the same had vested in them in equal shares prior to the commencement of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953. Subsequently, however, an enquiry suo moto was taking up by Shri H.S. Chhatwal, Revenue Assistant Rohtak, and he came to the conclusion that the order of the Consolidation Officer dated April 5, 1953, and the subsequent mutation passed thereon were dubious entries and he directed that a further probe be made into the validity and authenticity of these purported transactions. Pursuant to that enquiry, Shri Hargo Lal, Collector, Rohtak, obtained the permission of the Commissioner, Ambala, on the 26th of October, 1965, to review the earlier order (Annexure "A") dated Fabruary 12, 1963. Shri Hargo Lal served notices on petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 as also on respondent No. 16 to show cause why the order (Annexure "A") be not reviewed, but no notice whatsoever was served upon petitioners Nos. 3 to 8 and they were not given an opportunity and consequently they had no opportunity to represent their case before the Collector. In the revenue proceedings, evidence was led on behalf of the parties and the learned Collector himself noticed that most of the land owned by petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 16 before the commencement of the Act was in the cultivating possessi on of the tenants and a considerable part thereof still continued to be so at the time when the evidence was recorded. Nevertheless, the learned Collector passed a very exhaustive order (Annexture "C") dated June 16, 1966, which is primarily impugned on behalf of the petitioners, wherein he held that the purported transaction of partition and the order of the Consolidation Officer dated April 5, 1953, and the subsequent mutation of 2nd of May, 1953, were entirely suspicious matters which had to be ignored wholly for the purpose of the declaration of surplus area. He further held that all the 3 land-holders did not file the declarations required under section 5-A of the Act and imposed a penalty of 5 standard acres each. Further he found that the landowners had not brought their reserved area of 25 acres each under their self-cultivation within the prescribed time and hence this reserved area was also declared surplus in their hands.

(3.) Against the abovesaid order, the petitioners went up in appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, who, vide Annexure "D", agreed with the findings of the Collector by and large, but remanded the case to the Collector on the point of the declaration of 25 standard acres of land as surplus on the ground that the same had not been brought under self-cultivation. The petitioners then resorted to their remedy by way of revision to the Financial Commissioner but their grievance is that the learned Financial Commissioner did not closely analyse the issues involved but cryptically disposed them of by dismissing the revision petition on 7th of April, 1970, vide Annexure "F". The petitioners have hence moved this writ petition to challenge the order Annexure "C" and its affirmance by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner respectively.