BIRBAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Big land owner-Birbal instituted the present writ petition seeking the quashing of order dated 09.12.1992 (P-2) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana whereby while exercising suo motto powers of revision under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short the '1972 Act'), the order dated 31.10.1985 (P-1) passed by the prescribed Authority, Dabwali, was set aside and the issue remanded back for fresh determination of the surplus area in the hands of Birbal by the prescribed Authority under the provisions of the '1972 Act'.

(2.) In short, the said Birbal son of Sada Sukh resident of village Rampura Bishnoian, Tehsil Dabwali District Sirsa filed a declaration form under Section 9 of the 1972 Act claiming his permissible ara under the 1972 Act along with three additional units as permissible area for his three sons, who as per his assertion were adults on 24.01.1971 i.e. the appointed date for determination of the surplus area in the hands of big land owners under the 1972 Act. In support of his three sons namely Sahib Ram, Richhpal and Sehdev being adults, he had produced the age certificates duly issued by the Registrar Deaths and Births, Sirsa showing the date of birth as 14.10.1948, 7.1.1951 and 22.8.1952 respectively. Since the names in the certificates issued by the office of Registrar were entered as Kamal, Pardaman Kumar and Kesra respectively, the declarant produced the affidavit of the wife of Birbal, the another affidavit of Lal Chand son of Budh Ram stating that the elder son Saheb Ram was initially entered as Kamal, Richhpal as Pardaman Kumar and Sehdev as Kesra in the Chowkidara register and, therefore, their names have been so entered in the certificate produced from the office of the Registrar Deaths and Births, Sirsa. Although the Naib Tehsildar Agrarian appearing for the State had specifically pointed out that the names of the three sons as disclosed in the declaration form did not tally with the certificates of age produced and thus were of different persons, however, in the light of the affidavit, the prescribed authority held that the same though had different names related to the three sons of Birbal i.e. Saheb Ram (Kamal), Richhpal (Pardaman Kumar) and Sehdev (Kesra) and thereby proceeded vide order dated 31.10.1985 (P-1) to permit three additional units as permissible area apart from the permissible area of the big land owner in favour of the declarant. In this manner no surplus area was found at the hands of the big land owner-Birbal.

(3.) After about five years in the year 1990 the private respondents no.2 to 6 claiming themselves to be tenants of the area filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, which was treated as a suo motto petition under section 18(6) of the 1972 Act. It was pointed out that the big land owner had committed a fraud on the state by falsely stating the age of his three sons. It was further pointed out that the date of birth of three sons, namely, Saheb Ram, Richhpal and Sehdev was 7.1.1951, 2.9.1953 and 18.3.1956/24.5.1956 as per the certificate issued by Headmaster of the Primary School of Rampura Bishnoian whereas certificates issued by the Health Department mentioned these dates as 7.1.1951, 2.9.1953 and 24.5.1956. The learned Financial Commissioner on the basis of such certificates brought on record held that only one son i.e. eldest Sh. Saheb Ram had attained adulthood on the appointed date i.e. 24.1.1971 and entitled to additional unit while holding that the age of three sons as 14.10.1948, 7.1.1951 and 22.8.1952 produced before the prescribed authority was fake and thus based on fraud. Accordingly the order dated 31.10.1985 (P-1) was set aside and matter was remanded back for redetermination of the surplus area of Birbal on the appointed date after redetermining the genuine age of the three sons.