MEHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of two Civil Writ Petitions one filed by Mehar Singh and others, No. 664 of 1967 and the other by Piara Singh and three others, No. 1073 of 1967, against the State of Haryana and 23 others as these emanate from the same set of facts which briefly recapitulated run as follows. In both these petitions a prayer has been made for quashing orders of - (1) The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, respondent No. 2, dated the 4th April, 1967 annexure 'A' and (2). The Collector, Kaithal, dated the 2nd August, 1965 annexure 'B' whereby the petitioners were directed to vacate the parcels of land situate in village Mangana, district Karnal in their possession. The Collector in pursuance of the provisions made in the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, 1949, hereinafter referred to as the Act took possession of 461 acres of land partly out of shamilat and partly owned by the owners situate in village Mangana and thereafter he auctioned the lease thereof for a term of 7 years which was obtained by Devat Ram and Bhagat Ram in equal shares on 25th June, 1951, although the case originally was for a term of seven years but it could be extended to a period of 20 years. Devat Ram died some time after and the lease-hold rights were inherited by his son Ram Sarup. The petitioners in both the petitions during the currency of the lease entered into an agreement on 20th May, 1955, with Ram Sarup for joint cultivation of his share of the leased land, the terms of which are detailed in annexure 'H'. The parties were bound by the terms stated therein for the period of the lease fixed by the Government vide paragraph 11 of Annexure 'H'. The petitioners after getting into possession of the land are said to have spent considerable amount in installing tube-well, building kothas and in effecting other improvements.

(2.) The Collector by his order dated the 3rd June, 1959 cancelled the lease of the land granted in favour of Bhagat Ram and Devat Ram predecessors-in-interest of Ram Sarup. None of the petitioners was a party to those proceedings. The Commissioner on revision modified the above order of the Collector on 12th August, 1959, to the extent that the right, title and interest of the dependents of Pritam Singh and Ishar Singh, sub-lessees were protected, with which we are not concerned. The petitioners also applied to the Commissioner for review of his order praying that they were entitled to the same benefit as had been extended to the dependents of Pritam Singh and Ishar Singh. The learned Commissioner dismissed the review application but sent the case back to the Collector with the following directions :-

(3.) The petitioners alleged that the order of the Collector dated the 2nd August, 1965, annexure 'B' was void and beyond his competence for the reasons as given below :-