RAM PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SPECIAL Collector, Haryana exercising the powers of the Prescribed Authority under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 vide his order dated 29.7.88 declared 34 kanals 14 marlas of 'C' category land of Mangat Ram landowner as surplus. Killa Nos. 55//7/1, 8, 9, 12, 13/2 and 34/12 of village Chang were specified as the surplus area in that order. The Allotment Authority, Bhiwani vide his order dated 7.5.1993 allotted 55//7/1 and 8/1 to Sardara and Killa No. 55//18/2 and 9 min. to Sadhu Ram, 55/9 min. and 12 min. to Devki Nandan. Aggrieved by the orders of the Special Collector, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Hisar Division who vide his order dated 25.3.1994 dismissed the same being time barred. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the orders of the Commissioner and the Special Collector.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners argued that original landowner Mangat Ram died on 19.9.1974 and his son Sham Narain filed the declaration form under Section 9 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Their family owned 608 kanals 17 marlas of land of various classes equivalent to 896 kanals 12 marlas of 'C' category land on the appointed day i.e. 24.1.1971. The declarant claimed two units of permissible area. The Special Collector declared 34 kanals and 14 marlas of 'C' category land surplus. After the death of Mangat Ram landowner, the land in dispute came to his widow Smt. Lajwanti, respondent by inheritance and mutation No. 6255 was sanctioned in her name on 19.1.1977. The petitioners purchased 59 kanals 9 marlas of land including 20 kanals 13 marlas of land in dispute comprised in 55//7/1, 8/1, 8/2 and 9 vide registered sale deed dated 8.11.1977 for a sum of Rs. 48,000/- and mutation No. 7578 was sanctioned in their favour on 20.8.1986. Similarly, petitioners purchased 24 kanals including 8 kanals of land in dispute comprising of Killa No. 55/12 for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 23.12.1977 and mutation No. 7543 was sanctioned in their names. The petitioners obtained actual possession of the land in dispute and had become owners of the land in the year 1977 but the surplus area case of the original landowner was decided on 29.7.1988 without hearing the petitioners and the entire land in dispute was declared surplus. The Allotment Authority, Bhiwani vide the order dated 7.5.1993 allotted some of the land to the respondents No. 2 to 4 though this allotment has remained only a paper transaction. The learned counsel further argued that the order dated 29.7.1988 passed by the Special Collector and allotment order dated 7.5.1993 have been passed without any notice to the petitioners and they had no knowledge of the stay orders. When they came to know of these orders on 14.6.1993 on being told that the land in dispute had been allotted to respondents No. 2 to 4, they applied for the certified copies and filed the appeal before the learned Commissioner who dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 25.3.1994 only on the ground of delay and declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The learned counsel argued that it was incumbent upon the Special Collector to give notice to the vendees because the disputed area has been declared as surplus in gross violation of the provisions of Section 8(3) and Section 9(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The transferred land has to be considered to be the land of the big landowner and the surplus area has to be taken in the first instance from the area left with the big landowner and the transferees would be touched only if the surplus area could not be made good from the area left with the big landowner. He cited rulings 1973-PLJ-76, 1983-PLJ-264, 1991-PLJ-337 and 1993- PLJ-373 in this context. Citing 1983-PLJ-395, the learned counsel argued that the vendees have to be protected. He further said that the Commissioner while deciding the case of appeal has not gone into the merits of the case at all and has dismissed the appeal only on the question of limitation. He cited rulings 1970-PLJ-330 and 1973-PLJ-305 to emphasise that limitation starts from the date of knowledge. He further argued that Court should adopt a liberal approach in matters relating to condonation of delay. He also cited ruling 1987-PLJ-660 to say that every authority is expected to pass a speaking order whereas Commissioner's order is very cryptic and should be set aside on this ground alone.

(3.) SHRI Baldev Singh, Deputy District Attorney, appearing on behalf of the State said that surplus area should not be reduced. He also said that the appeal before the Commissioner was time barred, declaration was filed by the landowner on 16.8.1976, whereas the petitioners purchased the land in 1977 and that vendees should have been careful while purchasing the land in dispute. Shri Arvind Singh, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4 also endorsed the arguments given by the Deputy District Attorney.