SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURJIT Singh and nine Ors. through this petition filed by them under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution seek issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash orders passed by respondent No. 2, Financial Commissioner, Annexure P-5, vide which revision preferred by respondent-tenants against the order of the Commissioner dated 30th August, 1985, was accepted.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case reveal that by order dated 10th June, 1961, Collector Surplus Area declared 96. 89 ordinary acres of land as permissible area in the hands of big landowner, namely, Balram. This order was passed under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1953 ). This order was reviewed on 21st May, 1962 and landowner was held entitled to 60 ordinary acres of land. The matter however, once again came to the Collector, Surplus Area on 21st March, 1964, when the original landowner was examined who gave the list of Khasra numbers sought to to be reserved as surplus area as also list of Khasra numbers which had increased on account of consolidation operations. In view of fresh Goshwara prepared by Khanckand, Kanungo and verified by Vishnu Datt, Naib Tehsildar, the position of the laud holding of the said landowner was depicted as follows:-

(3.) MR . S. C. Mohunta, learned Senior Counsel vehemently contends that inasmuch as the land that was declared surplus on June 10, 1961 and which was reduced by order dated 21. 5. 1962 had not been utilised and in the meantime original landowner Balram died in the year 1974, the order of surplus had outlived its efficacy and there had to be a fresh computation and assessment of the land that had now come in the hands of legal heirs of Balram and that too in view of the provisions contained in Haryana Act of 1972. He further contends that if the total land now available with the petitioners, was determined in view of the provisions contained under the said Act, each individual male being entitled to separate unit, there will be no land surplus in the hands of the petitioners. For his aforesaid contention, the learned counsel places reliance on the single Bench judgment of this Court in Naresh Saran v. F. C. Haryana, 1990 P. L. J. 512. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-tenants, however, with equal vehemence contends that the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Collector, Surplus Area, way back in 1962, which was once again reviewed after landowner had submitted a list of khasra number in the year 1974, after a lapse of nearly 20 years and that too in a matter which was opened on the plea of tenants asking for tenants permissible area. He further contends that the area declared surplus under the provisions of Haryana Ceiling Act of 1972 automatically vests in the State on commencement of the Act as per provisions contained in Section 12 of the said Act.