ABHE RAM (DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY RAM PAL SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1455 and 1455 of 1967, petitioners are the same but the landlords are different. Similar question of law is involved in both these petitions. Hence, these will be disposed of by this order.

(2.) IT is alleged in the petition that the petitioners were old tenants of the land in dispute since the year 1935 and, that the land in dispute is less than their permissible area. It is further alleged that the proceedings were initiated against the landowners for declaration of their surplus area. The petitioners were not given any notice and the land which included the permissible area of the petitioners was declared as surplus. The petitioners unsuccessfully filled an appeal before the Commissioner and a further revision before the Financial Commissioner. Hence this petition.

(3.) MR . Wasu the learned counsel for the landowner -respondent raised a preliminary objection that the petitions are not competent as the Commissioner who was a necessary Party is not made a party in the present proceedings no doubt the commissioner is not made a party in the present case, but the Financial Commissioner and the State through the Collector are made a party. Mr. Wasu placed reliance on Naziruddin Sirajuddin v. P.S. Lawale, A.I.R. 1556 Nag. 65, and Laxmi Kumari Devi v. Radhakisan Mataram Marwadi and others, 1961 M.P.L.J. 1403. These authorities, no doubt, support the contention of Mr. Wasu, but a contrary view had been taken in Hafiz Mohammad yusuf v. The Custodian General, Evancuce Properties, New Delhi : A.I.R. 1954 All 433, where it has been held that the order of the Assistant Custodian merges in the order passed by the Custodian General. Since the petitioners have impleaded the Financial Commissioner, and the State through Collector, I am not inclined to agree with the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the land owner -respondent. Reliance was also placed by Mr. Wasu on Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar : A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 786 but thy point involved herein was not directly involved in the aforementioned authority of the Supreme Court where private party was not made a party and in that situation it was held by the Supreme Court that since the private party in whose favour the order of the tribunal was passed was a necessary party in writ was not competent.