DIVAKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been file under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 against the order dated 25.7.1992 passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar vide which he set aside the order dated 7.9.1988 of Special Collector Haryana and remanded the case to him to redetermine the permissible area and surplus area of the petitioners.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioner No. 3 landowner submitted his declaration form under Section 9 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. Since he owned land in two districts i.e Hisar and Sirsa, his surplus area case was decided by the Special Collector, Haryana vide his order Dated 11.7.1986. The Commissioner, Hisar Division accepted the appeal vide his order dated 17.9.1987 and remanded the case to the Special Collector, Haryana for fresh decision of the case on merits. The Special Collector again decided the surplus area case vide his order dated 30.6.1988 and 488 kanal 9 marla of 'C' category land was declared surplus in his hands. However the Special Collector, made the selection of his permissible area himself and issued Form IV vide his ex-parte order dated 18.7.1988. The petitioner moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte order and giving him an opportunity to select his permissible area. This request was accepted by the Special Collector who set aside the ex-parte order and asked the landowner to submit the area offered in the surplus pool. The petitioner submitted the list of the area offered in the surplus pool and amended Form IV was prepared and approved by the Special Collector vide his order dated 7.9.1988. The respondents No. 2 to 4 filed an appeal to the Commissioner that they had purchased 137 kanal 17 marla of land from Virender Singh, petitioner and out of that 89 kanal 19 marla of land had been wrongly included in the surplus pool. The Commissioner accepted the appeal vide his order dated 25.7.1992, setting aside the order fo the spcial collection and directing him to exclude the area purchased by the vendees from the surplus pool and take equivalent area in the surplus pool from the area selected by the landowner as his permissible area. The learned counsel argued that the appeal against the order dated 7.9.1988 was filed on 25.6.1990 i.e. after more than 20 months. This inordinate delay has not been explained at all. The limitation for appeal under Section 18(2) is only 15 days and there was no justification for entertaining the appeal after 20 months. He said that the vendees were not entitled to the notice of the surplus area proceedings. The Commissioner has condoned the delay on the ground that no notice had been given to them. He cited ruling 1987-PLJ-65 wherein it has been held that it is neither necessary to issue any notice to transferees, nor to give them any opportunity of being heard while deciding the surplus area case of the landowner. The rulings cited by the respondents No. 2 to 4 before the Commissioner are not relevant to this case, because land itself was purchased on 18.7.1989 whereas the surplus area case was decided on 7.9.1988 and that they were not in the picture during the proceedings of the case and the Prescribed Authority could not have issued a notice to the future vendees. He said that provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the 1972 Act are intended to safeguard the interest of the State to surplus area and do not provide any protection to the vendees who purchased land from the big landowner after 23.12.1972. In this case, the respondents purchased the area much after the decision of surplus area case. It has been held in 1987-PLJ-65 that even if the sold area has been offered in the surplus pool the vendee may approach the Civil Court for compensation but cannot seek exclusion of the area from the surplus pool. The learned counsel further argued that the transactions of transfer of land after the coming into force of the Act are all null and void and Court cannot infuse any life into such dead transactions and that vendee has not locus standi to claim that land purchase should be treated as landowner's permissible area. He cited judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court cited in 1996-PLJ-514 in this context. The learned counsel urged that the Commissioner's order may be set aside and the order of the Prescribed Authority may be restored.

(3.) THE learned counsel for respondent No. 2 to 4 argued that when the land was purchased by the Respondents form the petitioners, it was declared in the sale deed by the petitioner that the land in question was not surplus. However, the land had been included already in the surplus pool. Thus, the respondents have been cheated by the petitioners. Moreover, the land had not been mutated in favour of the State. According to Section 12(1) of the 1972 Act, the land stands vested in the State, as soon as it is declared surplus. Therefore, the mutations should have been sanctioned in favour of the State. Moreover, Form IV was also not sent to the Tehsildar and the Collector. As regards the limitation for filing the appeal, the learned counsel emphasised that the limitation starts from the date of the knowledge. He cited 1988(2)- RRR-306, 1991-PLJ-412, 1990-PLJ-189 in this context. He argued that any area which is sold by the landowner has to be included in his permissible area and not in the surplus area. He cited rulings 1995-PLJ-276 and 1983-PLJ-395 in this context. He said that Commissioner has rightly directed that the land sold by the petitioners to the respondents should be included in the landowner's permissible area and not in the surplus pool and hence the revision petition should be dismissed.