KEHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, by which it was held that the big landowner having died in 1982, the benefit of inheritance was not admissible to his heirs. As a result, the order passed by the Collector (Agrarian), Thanesar, was set aside. The petitioners pray that order of the Financial Commissioner may be quashed. A few fact may be noticed.

(2.) ON May 27, 1960, land measuring 13 acres 4 1/2 units belonging to Soran was declared surplus. On February 15, 1967, Soran sold area of land to Om Prakash etc. The details like Khasra Nos. etc. regarding the land which had been sold by Soran are not on the record. On December 30, 1982, Soran passed away. On April 26, 1984, the Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil) -cum -Collector (Agrarian), Thanesar, while considering the matter and regarding the choice of area, held that "the land of big owner has not been declared surplus and during this period the big land owner has also died. After his death, the heirs of big landowner have become small land owners. Therefore, no land can be declared as surplus, and Om Parkash etc. shall remain in possession of the land so purchased. Rule be consigned to record room." It appears that the State of Haryana filed a revision petition invoking the suo motu jurisdiction of the Financial Commissioner under S. 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This revision petition having been accepted, the two sons of Soran have filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. They challenge the order of the Commissioner on various grounds which shall be presently noticed.

(3.) MR . Anil Kheterpal, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner cannot be sustained in view of the provisions of S. 33(2), sub -clause (ii) of the Act. It has been further contended that the power under @page -PunjHar22 S. 18 could not have been invoked to correct an error of law and that in any case, the revision petition could not have been filed after the lapse of 3 years. Learned counsel maintains that since the land had not been utilised, it cannot be said to have vested in the State. Is the counsel right?