HARI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for declaration in which the plaintiff has claimed himself to be the owner in possession of land measuring 74 Kanals 10 Marlas comprised in Sq. No. 12 Killa No. 7(8-0), 8/2(6-0), 13, 14(16-0), 19/1(4-0), 22, 23(16-0), 24/1(4-4), Sq. No.11 Killa No. 9/2 (0-16), 13, 14(16-0), 15/1(3-10), as such recorded in jamabandi for the year 1996-97 of village Umedpura, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa allottee of "C" category, as ejected tenant,vide allotment order dated 30.11.1981 and ejectment order dated 27.7.1964. The plaintiff has challenged the order of Financial being Commissioner, Haryana dated. 29.6.1999 passed in ROR No.580 of 1992-93 read with Misc. No.41 of 1993-94 as illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction. As a consequential relief, the plaintiff has also prayed to restrain the defendants from dispossessing him from the land measuring 74 kanals 10 marlas.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY , the plaintiff case is that vide order dated 27.7.1964, passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sirsa under Section 9 of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, the plaintiff was ejected from the land of small land owners and was granted right of allotment from surplus pool to the extent of 5 standard acre. The order of ejectment dated 27.7.1964 was not appealed against and is still operative and the prescribed authority Sirsa vide his order 30.11.1981 allotted the land in dispute in compliance with the order of ejectment dated 27.7.1964. The plaintiff was also allotted land comprised in Murba No.21 Killa No. 2/2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and Killa No.24 Min. (3-16) of Sq. No.12. This allotment of land was challenged by one Gurbax Singh before the Collector by way of appeal which was accepted on 13.3.1982. After the remand, said Gurbax Singh was allotted this very area on 31.3.1983. Gurbax Singh filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner in ROR No.399 of 1986- 87. Vide order dated 30.9.1988, the Financial Commissioner rejected the claim of Gurbax Singh. The allotment order dated 30.11.1981 was upheld. On complaint filed by some persons, the Collector cancelled the allotment of the suit land on 22.11.1990. On 29.6.1999 the Financial Commissioner, Haryana cancelled the total allotment of the suit land while affirming the order dated 23.4.1987 and thus acted without jurisdiction, against the mandatory provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and thus the impugned order dated 29.6.1999 being ineffective, non-executable, not binding upon the rights and title of plaintiff over the suit land and is liable to be set aside on the grounds that while deciding the case under the provisions of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, read with utilization scheme, the Financial Commissioner, Haryana has no jurisdiction to overlook, modify, ignore the order of ejectment dated 27.7.1964 passed by Competent Court under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. The allotment order dated 30.11.1981 qua the suit land had become final in ROR No.399 of 1986-87 passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana on 30.9.1988 and second Financial Commissioner has no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment made on 29.6.1999, by violating the doctrine of merger, thus the order is without jurisdiction. Hence this suit.

(3.) SH . S. K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant has vehemently argued that the plaintiff was ordered to be ejected on 27.7.1964 by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sirsa. Thereafter, the plaintiff had a right for allotment of land from the surplus pool and since plaintiff was not holding land more than 5 standard acre on 27.7.1964 and also on 1.1.1976, therefore, the order dated 29.6.1999 is without jurisdiction. It is also contended that the allotment dated 30.11.1981 pertaining to the suit land had become final in ROR No. 399 of 1986-87 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana on 30.9.1988, therefore, the second Financial Commissioner has no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment on 29.6.1999. It is further contended that the plaintiff has a right to approach the Civil Court whose jurisdiction is not barred in spite of the provision of Section 26(1)(b) of the Act as the order is without jurisdiction.