TARA CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nathu Ram son of Lutar was a big land owner whose land measuring 470 Kanal 3 marlas situated in village Bhilpura, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar was declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). After declaration of the land to be surplus, the same vested in the State of Haryana and vide order dated 13.9.1976, a part of the land was allotted to the petitioner under the Haryana Utilisation of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Scheme"). Though the allotment order dated 13.9.1976, specifically directed the authorities to inform the petitioner regarding such allotment, no such information was sent. It is the case of the petitioner that when respondents No.5 to 7 encroached upon the land in question, he made enquiries and came to know of the allotment of the land to him through order dated 13.9.1976 (Annexure P-1). On having come to know of the allotment order, he immediately approached the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Allotment Authority, Jagadhari seeking possession of the land in question. His application was considered by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Allotment Authority, Jagadhari, who vide order dated 23.1.1996 (Annexure P-2) not only declined delivery of possession of the allotted land to the petitioner but went a step further and cancelled his very allotment. The order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Allotment Authority, Jagadhari, was challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal before the Collector, Yamunanagar. The Collector, Yamunanagar, found no merit in the submissions made by the petitioner and vide order dated 20.5.1997 (Annexure P-3) dismissed his appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, who vide order dated 24.8.1999 (Annexure P-4) accepted the revision petition filed by him and directed the Prescribed Authority, Jagadhari to deliver possession of the allotted land to the petitioner. The State of Haryana did not challenge the order dated 24.8.1999 passed in favour of the petitioner by the Commissioner, Ambala Division. However, the private respondents challenged the same by preferring a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. The matter was considered by the Financial Commissioner who after holding the petitioner guilty of delay in seeking possession of the allotted land, allowed the revision petition filed by the private respondents. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner is challenged by the petitioner through the present petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file with their able assistance.

(3.) The core issue which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner can be non-suited on the ground of having approached the authorities belatedly to seek possession of the land allotted to him. It is the admitted case between the parties that though the petitioner was allotted land through order of allotment dated 13.9.1976 but no formal intimation was ever sent to him informing him regarding such allotment.