ANNA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three revision petitions against the orders of Commissioner Hisar dated 19.8.1993 vide which he dismissed the revision petitions against the orders of Collector Sirsa dated 13.7.1993 accepting the appeal against the orders of Prescribed Authority Ellenabad dated 21.4.1993 regarding allotment of surplus land to the petitioners. The facts in all three revision petitions are similar and, therefore, they have been decided by the same order.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts are that the land in dispute was declared surplus vide orders dated 29.9.1961 of the Collector Surplus Area in the hands of big landowner Ganga Bishan and had vested in the State Government under section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 with effect from 24.1.1971 and became available for utilization under the provisions of the Haryana Utilization of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme, 1976. The Allotment Authority Sirsa allotted the and in dispute to the petitioners vide order dated 25.11.1988. This order was challenged before Collector Sirsa by the respondents who vide order dated 11.11.1992 accepted the appeal and setting aside the orders of Prescribed Authority, remanded the case to him for fresh decision after recording his conclusion on eleven propositions of law and fact which were framed by the Collector in his remand order. Meanwhile, the main case of declaration of surplus area of big landowner Ganga Bishan was challenged in Civil Court and in Revenue Courts on interventions made by one Maan Singh claiming to be old tenant but orders of the Collector Surplus Area Sirsa dated 29.9.1961 have remained valid. The Prescribed Authority passed a detailed order dated 21.4.1993 and gave his findings on all the propositions raised by the Collector in his remand order and upheld the allotment of surplus area to the petitioner. The Collector Surplus Area again remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority in appeal vide orders dated 13.7.1993 and set aside the allotment order dated 25.11.1988. In this remand order also, the Collector came to the conclusion that the allotment was not made after following the prescribed procedure as per the available records and directed that fresh allotment of land be made to eligible tenants on merits as per prescribed procedure. This order was challenged before Commissioner Hisar who vide order dated 19.8.1993 dismissed the revision petitions against the Collector's order.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondents have been acting in a mala fide in collusion with Maan Singh to somehow get the allotment of land in their favour without any pre-eminent claim for the allotment of land. The respondents claim to be successors of Maan Singh tenant through will and Maan Singh had first tried to get the declaration of surplus area cancelled in which he did not succeed even at the level of High Court. Thereafter, a story about a 'will' having been executed in favour of respondents by Maan Singh was framed up which is nothing but a fabrication and has no validity in the eye of law. 1985-PLJ page 581 was referred to in support of the contention that if the tenant does not leave behind any male lineal descedent or mother or widow, tenancy does not remain intact and continuity of tenancy comes to an end. A tenant is not entitled to execute a 'will' with regard to his tenancy to any other third person. It was argued that the Collector vide orders dated 13.7.1993 had set aside the orders of Prescribed Authority dated 25.11.1988 which were already set aside by him earlier on 11.11.1992 when he had remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority. It was stated that even if it is to be accepted that Munadi was not done properly earlier while making the allotment, the respondents were fully heard by the Prescribed Authority when he passed the orders dated 21.4.1993 and no infirmity can be attributed after full opportunity has been given to the respondents of being heard. It was stated that the order dated 25.11.1988 was passed after Munadi having been done and the respondents had appeared before the Prescribed Authority with Form US 2 but they were not found eligible for allotment on the basis of inter se priority. Prescribed Authority had answered all the propositions raised by the Collector in his remand order dated 11.11.1992 in a satisfactory manner and no reliance could be placed on the correction of Khasra Girdawari in favour of the respondents in collusion with Maan Singh showing the respondents as sub-tenants of Maan Singh. The Civil Court order dated 3.11.1991 has already held the correction on Khasra Girdawari to be invalid and appeal against the orders of the Civil Court was also dismissed on 12.9.1992. It was stated that the Collector has not found fault with various findings of the Prescribed Authority in a clear and objective manner and, therefore, his order is without jurisdiction. It was stated that the remand order should not take place unless the lower Court finding is based on wrong propositions of law or facts as there should be finality to the proceedings. Reliance was placed on 1973 PLJ page 44, 1992 PLJ page 104, 1987 PLJ page 637 and 660. As regards observations of the Additional District Judge referred to by the Commissioner in his order, it was stated that the said Civil Court had decreed the suit for possession in favour of the respondents but the High Court had admitted the appeal and stayed the dis- possession. Subsequently, the respondents had moved application in the High Court that the suit filed by them in the Lower Civil Court be allowed to be withdrawn thus setting aside the Lower Court judgment and the RSA pending in the High Court also become infructuous. Thus, the very civil suit on the basis of which the Commissioner has found support for his findings to uphold the Collector's orders dated 13.7.1993 has become non-existent. As regards notice being given to the tenants before allotment of surplus area, reference was made to 1986 PLJ page 539 according to which even tenant was not entitled to notice and display of surplus area and proclamation in the village regarding such display was sufficient for notifying to all concerned. Any eligible person desiring to have land allotted was required to submit application in Form US 2 within 30 days of such announcement and notice would be deemed to have been served on the date when proclamation was made in the village. It was stated that if there was no display of proclamation in the village the respondents could not have appeared before the Allotment Authority on that date through their counsel Mr. J.D. Juneja. Subsequently, the respondents conspired to remove several documents from the Lower Court's file pertaining to their having made an application for allotment etc. for which separate enquiry had been conducted at the level of the Collector. Petitioners had already obtained photocopies of those documents which were submitted before this Court along with an explanatory note by way of corroboration of their stand.