BHARPAI Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Writ Petition has been filed by Bharpai wife of Jitu as well as Piari (deceased through Santra, Bimla,Saroj and Patasa) wife of Shree Chand, residents of Issapur Kheri, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat, against the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, The Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector Agrarian, Rohtak, Dhani Ram and Jage Ram son of Sheo Chand under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 31.1.1978 (Annexure P- 1), 17.8.1979 ( Annexure P-2) and 12.2.1980 (Annexure P-4) passed by the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Shrimati Bhagwani, made a gift on 13.1.1960 in favour of her daughters Bharpai and Piari, referred to above. Mutation No. 1444 dated 29.10.1963 of the area measuring about 34 standard acres was sanctioned. As its consequence, the petitioners became full owners. of the land. The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum- Collector Agrarian, Rohtak-respondent, vide ex parte order dated 9.12.1976 declared the area of the petitioners surplus with the original land owner Bhagwani under Section 24-A(2) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 ( for brevity, 'the Act' ), without giving any notice or opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, who came to know about this order in the month of December, 1977 when the respondents tried to dispossess them from the land. The petitioners moved an application before the above mentioned respondent-Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector Agrarian, Rohtak, on 12.1.1978 on the ground that they had become full owner in the year 1960 and had a right to be heard before passing any order against their interest. This respondent rejected their application vide order dated 31.1.1978 (Annexure P- 1). They carried appeal to the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala- respondent, who also dismissed the same vide order dated 17.8.1979 (Annexure P-2). Then, they went in revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, who also dismissed the same vide his order dated 12.2.1980 (Annexure P-4). On the advice of a lawyer at Rohtak, the petitioners filed miscellaneous application before The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector Agrarian, Rohtak and got the stay of dispossession. That application was dismissed 20 days ago and now the authority is bent upon to oust the petitioners from the land in dispute. The impugned orders, Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-4 have been challenged on the grounds embodied in this petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.