HET RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two revision petitions filed under section 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act against the order dated 6.9.1994 passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division whereby he dismissed the revision petition filed before him by the petitioner against the order of the Collector, Sirsa dated 9.3.1994. Since the parties, the facts and law in both cases are the same, these are disposed of by a single order, copy of which be placed on ROR No. 48 of 1995.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Smt. Saraswati Devi was the original landowner who expired on 15.6.1972 leaving four heirs, namely Nand Lal, Bhagwati Parshad, Shashi Kant and Kasar Dev. Respondent No. 5, Satish Kumar is the son of Kesar Dev.

(3.) WHEN the declaration forms of the remaining two heirs, namely Bhagwati Parshad and Kesar Dev (now Satish Kumar) came up before the Prescribed Authority, Ellenabad he called for a report regarding the heirs of the deceased landowner from the Kanungo surplus area who reported as stated above that cases in respect of two of the heirs had been decided in 1989 and that those of the others remained to be decided. The Prescribed Authority vide his order dated 30.8.1993 held that no grievance regarding the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 3.9.1991 could be raised before him and directed, vide his order dated 20.8.1993, that proceedings be taken for the decision of surplus area of the remaining two heirs.