THAKAR JATINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shorn of surplusage and of the tortuous history of this litigation, the salient relief claimed herein by the petitioner is his right to select the permissible area of his land under Section 5-B of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953.

(2.) If suffices to refer to the facts directly relevant to the primary issue. Thakar Jatinder Singh petitioner is a big landowner and his surplus area case was initially decided by Shri Ram Saran Das, Collector, as far back as the 6th of November, 1961. Later the aforesaid order was marginally modified on the 27th of February, 1962, on an application for review. Thereafter, the petitioner duly selected his permissible area but in the meantime the Consolidation of Holdings took place in the village and therefore, the prescribed authority under Section 24-A(2) of the Act separated the permissible area of landowner out of the land allotted to him in consolidation vide order Annexure 'A-1' dated the 25th of July, 1962. It appears that the relevant file wherein this order was passed was lost or stolen at a later stage, though fortunately the petitioner had earlier obtained a certified copy of said order.

(3.) Meanwhile one Baru Ram an old tenant preferred an appeal against the original declaration of the surplus area on the ground that he had purchased some land under Section 18 of the Act from the petitioner and that this area should be computed in his permissible area and should not be allowed to form part of the surplus area of the landowner. On this appeal, the Commissioner remanded the case with a direction that a fresh declaration should be made after proper scrutiny. However, it appears that the Collector, Surplus Area, proceeded to decide the matter afresh entirely without notice to or appearance of the petitioner and recorded an order (Annexure 'B ') dated the 21st of April, 1965. It is not denied on behalf of the respondents that this order was made entirely behind the back of the petitioner and without any notice to him and it is his claim that the selection of the permissible area duly made by him under Section 5-B and accepted and implemented by the order dated the 25th of July, 1962 could not be modified or disturbed by a purported proceeding to which he was not a party. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Collector Agrarian in the proceedings for the utilisation of the surplus area allotted some of the permissible area reserved by the petitioner to respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The petitioner filed objections against such allotment on the basis that no such allotment could be made against his primary right to at least select the permissible area allowed to him. These objections were dismissed by the Collector Agrarian by his order dated the 9th of May, 1967 which was challenged in appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division. The appeal was allowed by the order Annexure 'C' dated the 18th of July, 1967 whereby it was directed in categorical terms that in case any order in favour of the petitioner as alleged by him had been passed on the 25th of July, 1962, the same should be forthwith implemented. In consequence of the above-said order, the Collector, Hissar, by his order (Annexure 'D') dated the 23rd of August, 1967, unreservedly directed the implementation of the earlier order dated the 25th of July 1962, and cancelled the order dated the 27th October, 1966. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 thereupon preferred an appeal against this order on the primary ground that they had not been given any hearing and this plea was upheld by the Commissioner with the observation that it would have been more appropriate if these respondents had been heard by the Collector before deciding the case in so far as they were displaced from the area allotted to them. The Collector was, therefore, directed to afford a hearing to them. It is significant to note that the Commissioner did not review, set aside or modify in any manner his earlier order dated the 18th July, 1967, whereby the petitioner's selected permissible area had been upheld. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the aforesaid order of the Commissioner and subsequently the matter came up again before the Collector, Hissar. Vide his order, dated the 11th of February, 1970, the Collector rather curiously attempted to override the earlier order of the Commissioner (Annexure 'C') which he had obviously no jurisdiction to do and attempted to resurrect the ex parte order of the Collector dated the 21st of April, 1965, which being obviously without jurisdiction could not adversely affect the petitioner and which had been further over-ridden by the order of the Commissioner. He, therefore, directed the revenue authorities below to determine the area in compliance with the aforesaid observations. Aggrieved primarily by this order, the petitioner unsuccessfully attempted to have it set aside before the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner. He has moved this writ petition to have the order (Annexure 'G') and its subsequent affirmance set aside.