PRITAM SINGH Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Haryana Act) against the order dated 22.9.1988 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (C)-cum-Allotment Authority, Dabwali.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the Sub Divisional Officer (C)-cum- Allotment Authority, Dabwali made an allotment of the surplus land available in village Ganga, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa on 22.9.1988 under the Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1976. Amongst a large number of other allottees, he allotted land to the respondents also who belong to the adjoining village of village Jhandwala Bishnoian. In fact the respondents were earlier allotted surplus land in their own village vide orders dated 21.5.1988. However, they did not get the possession of that land somehow and they applied to the Allotment Authority for allotment of the land in village Ganga, where the land was available and was being allotted. The Sub Divisional Officer (C)-cum-Allotment Authority, Dabwali agreed to their request, cancelled their allotment in village Jhandwala Bishnoian and allotted them the land in village Ganga. The petitioners have alleged that they also had applied for the allotment of surplus land to them in village Ganga. But the land was not allotted to them, though it was available. Instead the land was allotted to the outsiders i.e. the respondents belonging to another village. They have also enclosed with the revision petition photo copies of their applications. Therefore, they have filed the present revision petition against the above order dated 22.9.1988 passed by the Allotment Authority, whereby the land was allotted to the outsiders instead of the petitioners. It has been alleged that as per the provisions of the Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1976, the surplus land was to be allotted first to the eligible persons of the same village in which the land was situated. Only after all the eligible persons of the village have been allotted and some more land is also available, then it should be allotted to the outsiders. But the Sub Divisional Officer (C)-cum- Allotment Authority, Dabwali in violation of the law allotted surplus land to the outsiders whereas the petitioners belonging to the same village were available and eligible for allotment and their applications were not considered at all.

(3.) DURING arguments, the ld. counsel for the respondents raised three preliminary objections. First was with regard to the direct revision petition, second was with regard to the limitation and third was regarding the locus standi of the petitioners. Arguing the first objection, he contended that the petitioners have filed the revision petition directly before the Financial Commissioner. The Act provides appeal before the Collector and a revision before the Commissioner. Thus, the remedies available were not availed by the petitioners and there was no good reason to approach the Financial Commissioner direct. He referred to 1980 PLJ page 451, whereby such a revision was declined. Placing reliance on 1981 PLJ 43, he contended that the direct revision was not maintainable when the laid down procedure was not adopted as in the instant case. Even the inability to deposit the amount equal to 30 times of Land Holdings Tax on account of poverty was not considered as a good reason for direct interference. He further referred to 1983 PLJ 288, 1997(1) PLJ 27, and 1999(1) PLJ 257, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2002(1) PLJ 28. He also argued that even the revision petition is admitted at the preliminary stage, it would be open to respondents to raise objection regarding entertainability of the revision petition. This is no ground in view of 1983 PLJ 288.