KALYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE order dated 19.03.1966, the Collector (Agrarian), Sonepat made a declaration and included area measuring 18 kanals (ordinary), equivalent to one Standard Acre 6-1/2 Standard Units belonging to the petitioner in surplus pool to be utilized for the resettlement of the ejected and other eligible tenants. Petitioner made an application somewhere in March 1966 before the Collector under Section 10-A(b) of the Punjab Security of Lard Tenures Act, 1953 (as applicable at the relevant time) for exemption of the said land from utilization in lieu of land measuring 12 kanals 14 marlas (ordinary), equivalent to 1 Standard Acre 9-1/2 Standard Units which had been acquired by the State Government for Drain No. 6, out of his permissible area. This application was allowed vide order dated 21.11.1966 and it was ordered that no area be excluded from the surplus area. It is alleged that somewhere in the year 1976, the petitioner learnt that land in dispute was being mutated in favour of the Government and a Scheme is framed for its allotment to eligible tenants under the Haryana reorganization of the State of Punjab. The petitioner claims to have submitted an application to the Collector (Agrarian) objecting to the proposed Scheme relying upon order dated 21.11.1966 which had attained finality. It is further stated that the Collector formulated his opinion that the application of the petitioner is for review of the order dated 19.03.1986 requiring permission of the Commissioner and accordingly applied to the Commissioner for permission. The Commissioner, however, returned the case back to the Collector with the observation that the Collector himself was competent to grant the relief under Section 8 of the New Act, which was called for. The Collector, Sonepat treating himself to be prescribed authority under the New Act granted the prayer of the petitioner under Section 8(1)(a) of the New Act vide his order dated 01.08.1978. According to the petitioner, this order was as a matter of fact reiteration of the earlier order dated 21.11.1966. It is further stated that Naib Tehsildar (Agrarian), the Circle Revenue Officer filed an appeal before the Collector, Sonepat who allowed the same vide his order dated 14.02.1979 and set aside the order dated 01.08.1978 passed by the Collector in favour of the petitioner. This also virtually set aside the earlier order dated 21.11.1966. A Revision Petition filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Ambala challenging the order of the Collector dated 14.02.1979 also resulted in dismissal vide his order dated 29.07.1980. On the basis of the aforesaid order, an entry was made in Roznamcha Waqyati showing delivery of the possession of the land to respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana who dismissed the same vide his order dated 21.01.1983. The petitioner has accordingly preferred this petition challenging the order of Collector dated 14.02.1970, order of Commissioner dated 29.07.1980 and order of Financial Commissioner dated 10.01.1983.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Section 18 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 deals with filing of appeal, review and revision etc. Appeal lies to the Collector against the order of the Prescribed Authority. Section 18 reads as under :

(3.) IN para 6 of the writ petition, it is mentioned that at the time of filing of the appeal 30 times of the land holdings tax was required to be paid as fee which has not been paid. There is a specific provision 18(7) for deposit of a sum equal to 30 times of the land holdings payable in respect to the disputed land or furnishing a bank guarantee with the Appellate or Revisional Authority. This provision has not been complied with. The issue is squarely covered by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in case of Seth Nand Lal and another v. State of Haryana and others, 1980 PLJ 470 wherein following observations have been made :-