DINA NATH Vs. THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KANAHIYA Lal, respondent No. 5 was resident of Ram Kali, District Multan (now in Pakistan). He owned 10 SA and 14-1/4 units of land in that village. After the partition of the country, he migrated in India. On 17.6.1950, he was allotted 14 SA 7 units of land in the suburban of Hansi and 20 SA and 12-3/4 units of rural land in village Garia/199, Tehsil and District Hisar. Later on, said Kanahiya Lal sold the entire land allotted to him in Dhani Thakuria Mazra, Hansi (suburban area of Hansi) measuring 135 Kanals 18 Marlas to the petitioners vide sale deed dated 30.6.1964 for a sum of Rs. 18,000/- and possession was also delivered. Entries were incorporated in the revenue record. The petitioners constructed two tubewells on the land purchased by them from Kanahiya Lal. They also developed and improved the quality of land.

(2.) THEREAFTER the Assistant Registrar-cum-Managing Officer, Haryana, respondent No. 3, made a reference on 21.10.1975 (Annexure P-1) to the effect that Kanahiya Lal should have been granted only 7 SA and 7-1/4 units of suburban area of Hansi instead of 14 SA and 7 units. This was so done on the plea that the land of Kanahiya Lal in village Ram Kali (Pakistan) was rural land as it was so held by the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 529 of 1967 decided on 30.1.1975 in the case titled as Smt. Atma Devi v. Union of India. Therefore, Kanahiya Lal has been granted more land in suburban area whereas he should have been granted less area in suburban and more area in rural area. This reference was accepted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 2.7.1979 (Annexure P-2). The petitioners filed an appeal before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue-cum-Secretary to Government, Haryana Rehabilitation Department, vested with the powers of Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (in short the Act of 1954). The said appeal was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 6.12.1983 (Annexure P-6). The petitioners filed a review application which was also dismissed by the said officer vide order dated 6.3.1984 (Annexure P-10). Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, the submission of learned State counsel was that the suburban area allotted to Kanahiya Lal was in excess and, therefore, it could rightly be cancelled whenever the error was detected. It was submitted that the land in village Ram Kali left by Kanahiya Lal in Pakistan was rural land while the allotment was made to Kanahiya Lal in suburban area, Hansi considering the land in village Ram Kali as suburban land. Later on, the Delhi High Court vide judgment dated 30.1.1975 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 529 of 1967 in the case reported as Smt. Atma Devi v. Union of India (supra), held that the land in village Ram Kali (Pakistan) was rural land and on its basis, the land allotted to Kanahiya Lal in suburban area was cancelled and he was to be allotted the area equal to the cancelled land in rural area. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Om Parkash and others v. Union of India and others, 1970(3) Supreme Court Cases 942. It was submitted that the revisional power under Section 24 of the Act of 1954 could be exercised at any time without limit and, therefore, the impugned order of cancellation was legal and valid. These submissions have been considered. The record has been perused.