MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Collector Surplus Area, Hisar, vide his order dated 16.6.1961 declared 134.11 acres (52 standard acres and 98 units) surplus with the petitioner under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "The Punjab Act"). The landowner filed an appeal against this order before the Commissioner Ambala Division, who vide his order dated 13.10.1961 remanded the case for fresh decision after hearing the petitioner. After the remand, the Special Collector Punjab filed the case vide order dated 7.1.1963 due to non-appearance of the petitioner before him. This order was also challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the Commissioner who accepted the same vide his order dated 16.7.1963 and remanded the case to the Special Collector, who vide his order dated 29.7.1963 reduced 2.79 standard acres from the earlier decision on account of reduction because of consolidation and declared 50.19 standard acres as surplus. The petitioner again filed an appeal before Commissioner, Ambala Division, who again remanded the case vide his order dated 1.6.1965. On remand the Collector, Surplus decided the matter vide his order dated 6.9.1966 and an area of 19.66 standard acres was declared surplus and an area of 71 acres 3 kanals was declared as tenants' permissible area, and purchases made by the tenants under Section 18 were exempted. The petitioner again filed an appeal against the order dated 6.9.1966 before the Commissioner Ambala Division, who vide order dated 9.10.1969 again remanded the case to the Collector Surplus Area. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, one Beg Raj filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana who vide his order dated 25.11.1975 remanded the case with the direction to decide the case under Section 2(3) of the Punjab Law. Aggrieved by the order of Financial Commissioner, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 8.12.1981 directed that the landowner should be given 30 standard acres or 60 ordinary acres. The Collector Surplus Area, Hisar decided the case afresh vide his order dated 29.3.1985 and declared 6 acres 5 kanals and 19 marlas land as surplus. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector, the landowner again went in appeal before the Commissioner Hisar Division, who vide his order dated 5.8.1986 remanded the case mainly on the ground that the extent of land in the category of banjar as on 15.4.1953 may be investigated. The Collector Surplus Area, Hisar vide his order dated 21.6.1990 gave benefit of banjar kadeem, banjar jadid and gair mumkin to the extent of 10 acres 3 kanals and 18 marlas and declared 6 acres 5 kanals 19 marlas as surplus area. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.6.1990 of the Collector, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner Hisar Division, who vide his order dated 3.1.1994 dismissed the same. Hence, the present revision petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Collector Surplus Area should have decided the case in accordance with the directions in the remand order dated 9.10.1969 of the learned Commissioner. Almost the entire area under the self-cultivation of the petitioner was banjar or gair mumkin, and that could not have been included in the selected area of the petitioner. He also argued that the area sold by the petitioner after 15.4.1953 could not be legally counted towards his reservation. The learned Financial Commissioner had only allowed the appeal to the extent that the petitioner was not entitled to the permissible area larger than one allowed to the non-displaced person. The order of the Financial Commissioner was maintained by the Hon'ble High Court holding that the petitioner was entitled to the permissible area of 30 standard acres or 60 ordinary acres whichever was less. The learned counsel argued that 36 acres and 5 kanals area of the petitioner was banjar kadeem on 15.4.1953 and this should have been excluded from the total holding of the petitioner. But the Collector had allowed him the benefit of only 10 acres 3 kanals and 18 marlas. He said that the land which was brought under cultivation after 15.4.1953 could not be excluded from the total holdings of the landowner and cited the rulings 1979 PLJ 182, 1990 PLJ 116 and 1968 PLJ 297. He therefore, urged that benefit of 36 acres and 5 kanals of area should be given being banjar kadeem as on 15.4.1953. He said that there was gair mumkin area also and that total area of 300 kanals and 7 marlas was to be excluded. He further urged that area sold by the petitioner after 15.4.1953 could not be included in his permissible area, but the learned Collector has given the benefit of the sold area to the vendees. He cited the ruling Lajpat Rai and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1981 PLJ 316 that there is no equity in favour of the vendees to have the land sold included in the permissible area and that the transferee must be credited with the full knowledge of the extent of land owned by the transferor. The landowner has the statutory right to select his full permissible area and that cannot be taken away on the principle of equity. He also cited rulings 1968 PLJ 338, 1970 PLJ 234, 1977 PLJ 118 and 1983 PLJ 234. Therefore, the case should be remanded back to the Collector Surplus Area, Hisar for deciding the case afresh in accordance with the law and after hearing the petitioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the other respondents argued that order dated 9.10.1969 on the basis of which the learned counsel for the petitioner argued the case, has been set aside by the Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 25.11.1971. Thereafter, the matter has been adjudicated upon at the level of the Hon'ble High Court and the learned Collector and the Commissioner have now decided the case strictly in accordance with the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court. On this ground itself the revision petition should be dismissed. The Collector has already given the benefit of 83 kanals 18 marlas (10 acres 3 kanals and 18 marlas) towards banjar kadeem, banjar jadid and gair mumkin as on 15.4.1953. The Collector has decided this issue strictly according to the revenue record. The Commissioner has also concurred with the findings of the Collector on this point. Thus, these are concurrent findings of the fact by the Collector and the Commissioner and matters pertaining to the facts cannot be raised at the stage of revision petition. The learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the petitioner had got the area reserved in 1952-53 and had sent the necessary declaration form in 1958 and had also given the list of khasra numbers which he wanted to keep with him. He is, therefore, not entitled to any further opportunity of selection. He cited the rulings 1976 PLJ 322, 1976 PLJ 379 and 1981 PLJ 316. He further said that Mohan Lal has admitted in the statement that he had sold 310 kanals area and had entered into agreements for the sale of 128 kanals and that this area should be excluded.