PARMA NAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) H . S. Bedi, J. (Oral) The petitioners the sons of Gopala were owners of 33 standard acres 3 units of land including one acre of Banjar Qadim situated in village Jhanjholi, District Sonepat. Consolidation of holdings took place in this village in the year 1957-58. The petitioner's father was allotted 31 standard acres and 2 units including 3 acres of Banjar Qadim. It is the case of the petitioners that the Banjar Qadim land was in Rectangle No. 12, Killas No. 15, 16 and 25. Vide order dated 11.2.1960, the Collector Agrarian, declared 3 standard acres and 3 units of area as surplus, holding that Gopala was entitled to 30 standard acres of land only as on 15.4.1953, the relevant date under the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 hereinafter called the 'Act'. It appears that when Gopala received notice with regard to his surplus area case, he made an application for review of the order dated 11.2.1960 vide application dated 21.11.1977 Ex.P1 to the petition, making a grievance that while making the order dated 11th February, 1960, the Collector had not given him the benefit of the reduced land given to him in the consolidation of holdings whereby his area had been reduced by two standard acres; that killa Nos. 15 and 16 of Rectangle No. 12 did not belong to him and belonged to one Ram Saroop and Bhola and had been wrongly included in his surplus area and that one standard acre and 2 unit of Banjar Qadim land should have been excluded, while determining his surplus area. Vide Annexure P-2 dated 27.12.1978, the S.D.O (Civil), Sonepat, recommended the case for review under Section 24 of the Act to the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, on the first of the two grounds. It appears that yet another application seeking review of the order dated 11.2.1960 was again made to the Collector vide Annexure P-3 at the instance of Sube Singh, who had purchased Killa No. 15 and 16 in Rectangle No. 12 from Ram Saroop aforementioned. The Financial Commissioner, however, vide Annexure P-4 declined to sanction review with the observations that the Collector had not recommended any benefit to the landowner on account of consolidation and as the owners of Khasra No. 15 and 16 of Rectangle No. 12 i.e. Ram Sarup and Bhola had not made a grievance before the Collector, the petitioner could not make a grievance on their behalf. It is against this order Annexure P-4 that the present petition has been filed.

(2.) A reply has been filed in response to the petition and it has been stated that the order dated 11.2.1960 was fully justified, as the relevant date i.e. 15.4.1953 was to be taken into account and that any subsequent reduction in the area on account of Consolidation of Holdings would not have effect on the area in the hands of the landowner.

(3.) MR . Mittal has then argued that the finding of the Financial Commissioner that even if some area belonging to the other landowners was included in the surplus area of the petitioner, no prejudice had been suffered by him, was also incorrect. There is merit in this argument as well. It cannot be denied that the area of some other landowners wrongly added would increase the land holding of that landowners with the result that a larger area would be liable to be declared surplus.