SHASHI KUMAR Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of six Civil Writ Petition Nos. 8788 of 2009 (Shashi Kumar and others v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and others), 8815, 8835, 9975 and 8921 of 2009 (Shashi Kumar v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and others), 8824 of 2009 (Shashi Kumar and another v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and others). Facts are common and common question of law have been raised in these petitions.

(2.) CHALLENGE in these writ petitions is to the order dated 19.3.2008 (Annexure P-6) and order dated 10.2.2009 (Annexure P-7). A mutation done in favour of the respondent-tenants on 24.11.1986 was undone by the Collector on 17.12.2007, which order is set-aside by the Commissioner vide Annexure P-6 and the same is upheld by Financial Commissioner through order, Annexure P-7. Reference to unnecessary facts as contained in the writ petition may not be needed as the challenge in the present petitions is to orders, Annexures P-6 and P-7, which relate to mutation in favour of the tenants. Accordingly, a mention to facts, in brief, relevant to decide the challenge raised in the petitions is being made, leaving the unnecessary details disclosed in the petitions.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the surplus proceedings, 6 applications were filed by the tenants (including Surta, Respondent No. 4) of village Galoli under Section 18 of the Tenures Act. These applications were allowed on 29.1.1969. Mutation of this land came to be sanctioned in favour of the tenants (except respondent No. 4) on the basis of order dated 29.1.1969 vide which the purchase applications were allowed. The land owner made an application for cancellation of the said mutation on the ground that the order dated 29.1.1969 was set-aside by the Collector on 23.5.1969. The Collector cancelled the mutation on 21.9.1981 and mutated the land in the name of land owners. Tenants then filed an appeal against the same, which was accepted by the Collector on 12.4.1983 and the case was remanded to Assistant Collector to decide the cases of mutation afresh after hearing both the parties. On 15.7.1983, the Assistant Collector again decided the case of mutation in favour of the land owners. Appeal against this order was dismissed by the Collector on 31.10.1983. The petitioners claim that this order has become final as it was never challenged. This assertion of the petitioners does not seem to be borne out from the facts. It appears that the revision was filed against this order before the Commissioner. On 6.2.1985, this revision was forwarded by the Commissioner to the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, with recommendation that the mutation in respect of the land in dispute be sanctioned in favour of the tenants or the Government and not in favour of the land owners. The Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 20.5.1987 had accepted these recommendations. The response of the petitioners is that these orders relate to the land situated in village Mandebri.