GUTTI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the orders dated 24.4.1984, 3.1.1984 and 4.9.1961.

(2.) GIRDHARI Lal-Respondent No. 5 was a big land owner. His surplus area case was decided on 4.9.1961 and 105.88 ordinary acres/44.41 std. acres were declared surplus in Villages Darba Kalan, Nehranwali and Bir Hansi. The petitioner, alleges that he was the tenant of the big land owner on 15.4.1953, with respect to Killa No47//16 (8K- 0M), 17(8-0), 18(8-0),19(8-0), 20(7-2), 21(3-16), 22(8-0), 63//1(8-0), 10*8-0), 11(7-13), 64//4min (2-0) measuring 76 kanals 11 marlas situated in Bir Hansi, Distt. Hisar and continues in possession as such. After the coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Haryana Act'), the Collector sought to appropriate the land in the petitioner's possession for allotment to the petitioner and the private respondents. 27 kanals of land was allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal on 11.9.1980, before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, praying that the order dated 4.9.1961 declaring surplus area be set aside, as it was passed without notice to the petitioner, a sitting tenant and without reserving tenant's permissible area. The learned Commissioner, dismissed the appeal, as being barred by limitation.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the question that arose for adjudication before the Financial Commissioner was, not necessarily whether the petitioner was the tenant on 15.4.1953 but whether the petitioner or any other tenant was in possession. It is submitted that it is not denied by the State or by the private respondents that the land in dispute was in the possession of tenants on the appointed day. It is not denied that no notice was served upon any tenant, including the petitioner, prior to declaration of surplus area. The learned Financial Commissioner, should have therefore set aside the order dated 4.9.1961 and directed the Collector to redetermine the surplus area after issuing notices to all sitting tenants and also directed the Collector to decide whether the petitioner was in possession as a tenant. Reliance for the submission, that the identity of the tenant is irrelevant once the tenancy continues, is placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Nanak Chand v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 1981 PLJ 99 and subsequently followed by this Court in Makhan Singh v. The State of Haryana through the Collector Surplus Area, Sirsa, 2005(3) RCR(Civil) 512 : 2005(3) PLR 123. It is submitted that as the petitioner and prior to him, his father was a tenant, the stray entry in the revenue record for the year 1953, should not have been relied by the Financial Commissioner, to non-suit the petitioner.