CHANDER BHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Writ petition was originally heard along with the set of 534 connected petitions in which the primary point was the vires of Sections 18(7), (8) and (9) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, as amended by the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1978. That issue was decided against the petitioners in the elaborate judgment of the Division Bench recorded in Siri Chand etc. v. The State of Haryana and others, 1978 PunLJ 277 (C.W.P. No. 3365 of 1977) on the 18th of August, 1978 : , whereby the constitutionality of the aforesaid provisions was upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioner had, however, earlier urged that there were other issues on merits for which reason this case has now came up for separate hearing.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Prescribed Authority, Bahadurgarh, dated the 30th of December, 1977, (annexure P.1) whereby an area of 539 Kanals 14 Marlas had been declared surplus under the provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. It is equally not in dispute that the petitioner had presented an appeal in the Court of the Collector, Rohtak, against the aforesaid order on the 9th of March, 1978. However, because of the alleged onerous conditions laid for presenting the appeal, the present writ petition was filed challenging the relevant provisions providing for the appellate forum. Learned counsel for the petitioner had to fairly concede that the issue of the constitutionality of the relevant provisions of Section 18 of the Act in the circumstances was concluded against him.

(3.) Nevertheless Mr. I.C. Jain had sought to contend that even though the alternative remedies by way of appeal and revision were available to him, yet the impugned order being one of a lack of inherent jurisdiction the present writ petition is thus competent. Learned counsel, however, could not even remotely show how the order of the Prescribed Authority could be described as lacking entirely in jurisdiction. In fact he had to concede that no forum other than the Prescribed Authority under the statute had jurisdiction to declare the area surplus. Repelled (Relying ?) on his main ground Mr. Jain had then attempted to argue that the order, annexure P.1, was not in accordance with law. Assuming for the sake of argument that it is so the present writ would hardly be maintainable in face of a statutory right of appeal and revision conferred on the petitioner by the relevant provisions of the Act.