MADAN GOPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition was filed earlier before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana against the order dated 26.2.1983 passed by the Commissioner Hisar Division in the surplus case of the petitioner. The brief background of the case is that the petitioner was big landowner having an area of 1151 kanal 3 marlas of C-category in the villages of Jhiri and Panjmala, Tehsil & District Sirsa as on 24.1.1971. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Prescribed Authority, Sirsa after allowing the primary unit declared an area of 719 kanal 3 marlas as surplus vide his order dated 23.9.1978. On appeal, the Collector Sirsa vide his order dated 14.10.1980 allowed another area of 113 kanal 6 marlas being uncommanded area and the surplus area was reduced to 605 kanal 17 marlas. The petitioner, however, filed a revision before the Commissioner, Hisar Division seeking further relief of 111 kanal 6 marlas on account of bona fide sale and an area of 160 kanal 11 marlas on account of the civil Court decree dated 15.4.1972. The ld. Commissioner vide his order dated 26.2.1983 allowed an area of 111 kanal 6 marlas on account of bona fide sale, but dis-allowed the claim of 160 kanal 11 marlas transferred on 15.4.1972 to the petitioner's sister through a civil Court decree on account of family transfer made with an intention to reduce the surplus area. The petitioner then filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana contending that the transfer through civil Court decree dated 15.4.1972 was made before the enforcement of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 i.e. before 23.12.1972. It was further contended that the transfer of 160 kanal 11 marlas to his sister dates back to the death of petitioner's father before the appointed day. The ld. Financial Commissioner, however, did not find any merit in his contention on the ground that the petitioner transferred this land first to his wife and later on it was transferred to his sister with a view to escape the surplus law and dismissed the revision petition in limine vide his order dated 8.5.1984.

(2.) THE petitioner then filed CWP No. 4131 of 1984 in the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. It was contended before the Hon'ble Court that the land in dispute was ancestral in the hands of the deceased father of the petitioner. The sister of the petitioner Smt. Bhagwani Devi had a share in this land which she was denied on the basis of the Will. She filed a civil suit in order to get her share on the ground that she was entitled to inherit the property of her father on his death in the year 1969 itself. The civil Court passed the decree in his favour on 15.4.1972. Since Smt. Bhagwani Devi was entitled to her share of land in the year 1969 itself, therefore, she cannot be denied this right even if the decree was finally passed in her favour on 15.4.1972. The judgment of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Court in case Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. State of Haryana, 1977 PLJ 230, was also relied upon. On the basis of the above, the Hon'ble High Court set aside the order dated 8.5.1984 of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana and remanded the case back to him for a fresh decision vide his order dated 17.11.2004. Hence the present proceedings.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by both sides and gone through the judgment dated 17.11.2004 of the Hon'ble High Court. The contention of the petitioner in the revision petition is limited to the civil Court decree dated 15.4.1972, whereby an area of 160 kanal 11 marlas was transferred to his sister. He has sought the relief of this area from the surplus. It is evident from the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court that the decree dated 15.4.1972 cannot be ignored even if passed after the appointed day i.e. 24.1.1971. It was held therein that Smt. Bhagwani Devi, the decree holder had a pre-existing right in the land left by his deceased father and the same accrued to her on the date of death of his father in the year 1969. The decree dated 15.4.1972 just gave the official certification to her pre-existing right. This judgment of the Hon'ble High Court has not been challenged by the State and, therefore, the same stands and is binding. Since the issue in this revision petition relates to the decree dated 15.4.1972 only, nothing remains further to be adjudicated by his Court. The revision petition is accordingly accepted and the case is remitted to the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Prescribed Authority, Sirsa for further necessary action to redetermine the surplus area of the petitioner accordingly. Announced. Order accordingly.