BHOOP SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been directed against the judgment, dated 6th April, 2005, passed by the learned Single Judge whereby Civil Writ Petition No. 2055 of 1997, which was filed by the appellant's father, Ram Kala (since dead), has been dismissed. In the said writ petition, a writ in the nature of certiorari was sought for quashing the order passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade (Annexure P-1), the Collector (Annexure P-2) and the Financial Commissioner (Annexure P-3), respectively, in terms whereof the claim to grant proprietary rights to the writ petitioner in respect of the land in dispute, was turned down.

(2.) Shorn of the details, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant filed a petition under Section 20 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 before the Assistant Collector First Grade, Charkhi Dadri seeking grant of proprietary rights regarding the agricultural land measuring 3 bighas and 17 biswas situated within the revenue estate of village Shamespur, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani. His application was, however, turned down by the Assistant Collector First Grade vide order, dated 19.11.1974 (Annexure P-1), which was further upheld by the Collector as well as the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana vide their orders, dated 29.9.1975 (Annexure P-2) and dated 12.9.1986 (Annexure P-4), respectively. The claim of the appellant's predecessor-in-interest was rejected by the revenue authorities after returning a concurrent finding of fact that as per the revenue record, he was not found to be in continuous cultivating possession of the land in dispute for a period of 12 years preceding the cut-off date in terms of section 7-A(2) of the Act, and therefore, was not eligible for acquisition of proprietary rights under section 20 of the Act. The authorities also held that the appellants predecessor-in-interest came into cultivating possession of the land in dispute in the year 1958 only and prior thereto one Kamla Jat was in possession thereof since the year 1955, as depicted in the revenue record (Annexure P-6).

(3.) Relying upon the statement purported to have been made by Kamla Jat on 7.3.1973 (Annexure P-3) wherein he is alleged to have admitted that he was never in cultivating possession of the land in question, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the revenue record in which said Kamla Jat was shown to be in cultivating possession from the year 1955 till the year 1958, stood falsified and rebutted. The learned Single Judge, however, repelled this contention and dismissed the writ petition with following observations:-