HARI RAM SHARMA Vs. COMMISSIONER ROHTAK DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant revision petition has been filed under Section 18(6) of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, challenging the order dated 16.3.2006 passed by Ld. Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak said order dated 20.5.2003 passed by Collector, Karnal.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as born out from the petition, are that Takan Dass S/o Sh. Milkhi Ram was a big landowner, some of his land was declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, which as per the petitioner, included 83 kanals 15 marlas in possession of Sh. Amar Nath, father of the petitioner. The petitioner's father applied for purchasing this land u/s 18 of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and during pendency of this application, a compromise was reached between the landowner Takan Dass and Amar Singh and Rs. 16,775/- were paid by petitioner's father to the landowner for retaining possession of land measuring 67 kanals 2 marlas. Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Karnal/Prescribed authority allowed purchase of only 39 kanals 4 marlas of land to the father of the petitioner. However, petitioner asserts that he remained in possession of entire 83 kanals 15 marlas of land. Further, 41 kanals 11 marlas of land had been allotted to the father of petitioner in 1978 and the petitioner had deposited its price and interest thereon on 1.1.98. Ram Kishan, respondent No. 3, purchased land measuring 61 kanals 11 marlas from legal representatives of big landowner, which included land measuring 31 kanals 11 marlas out of 44 kanals 11 marlas allotted to the father of the petitioner.

(3.) WE have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner wherein the points of the petition have been reiterated. We have perused the impugned orders also. After considering all aspects of the case, we are of firm view that all the contentions of the petitioner herein have been rejected in the impugned orders alter a thorough consideration. The findings of Ld. Collector, Karnal, recorded in the impugned order dated 20.5.2003 and upheld by Ld. Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak vide order dated 16.3.2006 make the things crystal clear. The petitioner's father has not been found to be an old tenant on the cut-off date in 1953 and his tenancy is from 1955 onwards. Once he is not found tenant, allotment of surplus land to him as tenant of 'A' or 'B' category is illegal and the order of allotment is non-existence in the eyes of law. Moreover, on account of purchase of about 2 hectare land by the petitioner's father, he is not entitled to allotment even in any other category under the Haryana Utilization of Surplus Land Scheme, 1976. Furthermore, non-depositing of price of the allotted land for long time makes the even otherwise illegal allotment order as infructuous. Depositing of the amount after 20 years, is against rules and does not confer any rights, whatsoever. The petitioner has also conveniently omitted any reference to order dated 5.3.1981 of Prescribed Authority, Karnal u/s of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 which has exempted the area from vesting in State on account of bona-fide transfer and death of original landowner in 1967. In light of the above discussion of the facts and law of the case, we don't find any merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.