JEONA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jeona has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order, copies of which are Annexures 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' to the petition, passed by the different revenue authorities.

(2.) The petitioner owned 42 standard acres and 2-3/4 units of agricultural land in village Bhikhewala and 2 standard acres and 8-1/2 units of land in village Danoda Khurd. He sold 4 standard acres and 15-1/4 units of land to Tek Singh and others through a registered sale deed on 5.4.1957. A mutation evidencing this sale also entered and sanctioned and necessary entries had been made in the Jamabandi. The petitioner learnt in the year 196 that 12 standard acres and 2-3/4 units of land belonging to him had been declared surplus by the Collector (Agrarian), vide his order dated 16.5.1961. The petitioner had not been associated with these proceedings and the order had been passed at his back. He came to know about these proceedings only when a notice was served on him requiring him to furnish the list of Khasra numbers which he wanted to declare surplus. He filed objections before the Collector and took up a specific plea that 4 standard acres and 15-1/4 unit of land which had been sold by the petitioner before the due date to landless persons who were not related to him, could not be taken into account while determining the surplus area. He had also contended that the draft-statement had not been served on him. Both these objections were rejected by the Collector on 30.8.1966. He rather corrected the earlier order and held that 14 standard acres and 11-1/4 units instead of 12 standard acres and 2-3/4 units of land was surplus with the petitioner. Dissatisfied with this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner did not accept the contentions raised by the petitioner. He, however, modified the order of the Collector to the extent that a fresh draft-statement regarding the land in village Danoda Khurd be served on the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached the Financial Commissioner by way of a revision petition and the same was dismissed by him on 19.2.1969. Dissatisfied with these orders, Jeona has filed the present petition.

(3.) Mr. N.C. Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that any order passed by the Collector whereby the land of the petitioner was declared surplus without associating him was a nullity and could not affect his rights. There is no merit in this contention. The petitioner had been associated in the proceedings for declaration of his surplus area. In fact, a draft-statement had also been served on him. This is evident from the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner before the Commissioner. There, a specific plea had been taken that the draft-statement issued to the petitioner did not contain the Khasra numbers of the land which had been left as his permissible area. This will clearly shows that the petitioner had received the draft-statement in 1961. For full five years, he did not file any objections against the draft-statement. As a belated stage, the petitioner could not file any objections. Mr. Jain has contended that the Collector had collected the information on the basis of which he had declared the land of the petitioner as surplus. It was his duty to exclude the land sold by the petitioner. This argument has no force. It is not the factum of sale alone which excludes an alienated piece of land from consideration. Even before 31.7.1958 a transfer being a sale had to be in favour of a landless person or a small landholder who should not be related to the transferor. These are questions of fact which have to be determined and proved by the persons seeking exemption. In the absence of this plea, the Collector cannot be blamed for not excluding this land. It was the duty of the petitioner to raise objections at the proper time. Having failed to do so, he could not make a grievance of the same in the year 1966.