KAUSHALYA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3911 of 1983 (Kaushalya Devi v. State of Haryana and others), 3912 of 1983 (Parmod Kumar through L.Rs. v. State of Haryana and others) and 4756 of 2000 (Smt.Kaushalya Devi & others v. State of Haryana & others). The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 3911 of 1983.

(2.) THE petitioner, who is a big landowner, is aggrieved against the order declaring 123.89 ordinary and 52.39 standard acres of her land surplus. Having failed in appeal and revision, she has impugned this order through the present writ petition.

(3.) THE Collector declared 204.93 ordinary acres (75.44 standard acres) of land owned by the petitioner as surplus vide his order dated 20.10.1961. 23.79 standard acres was declared as tenants permissible area. An appeal against this order was filed by some tenants and the Commissioner set-aside the order passed by the Collector on 6.7.1971. The Commissioner remanded the case back to the Collector for re-determination of the surplus area. This time, the Collector on 13.2.1976 declared 30 standard acres as permissible area of the petitioner and gave benefit of 9.94 standard acres (65.36 ordinary acres) on account of Banjar land. 123.89 ordinary acres (52.39 standard acres) land was, thus, declared surplus by the Collector through his order dated 13.2.1976. The petitioner has made a grievance against this order on the ground that Collector had passed the order without application of mind and without going through the relevant jamabandies for the year 1951-52. The petitioner accordingly filed an appeal against this order before the Commissioner, who dismissed the same on 29.6.1978. The petitioner pleads that this order is cryptic and is without reasons. Petitioner then filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner. The petitioner also produced jamabandies for the year 1951-52 to show that land measuring about 120 ordinary acres was Banjar on the appointed date, i.e., 15.4.1953. The Financial Commissioner again has dismissed the revision on 31.1.1983. The petitioner, thus, filed this writ petition to impugn the orders passed by the Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner.