DHATTI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dhatti Ram petitioner owned 42 Standard Acres and 3 Units of land. The Collector Agrarian Reforms vide his orders dated 26th of November, 1959 declared 12 Standard Acres and 3 Units of land as surplus with the petitioner under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner along with his guardian mother was present before the Collector. They did not raise any objection at that time against the area being declared surplus.

(2.) The petitioner filed an application for review of this order on the ground that 39 bighas and 11 Biswas of land belonging to the petitioner had been mortgaged with possession to Ram Sarup and mutation evidencing this fact had been sanctioned on 24th of January, 1950. In short the plea was that on the date when the Act came into force, that is 15th of April, 1953, these 39 Bighas and 11 Biswas of land were not to be taken into account while determining his surplus area because in view of the definition of land-owner given in Section 2(1) and the Explanation thereto, the land which is mortgaged with possession is to be deemed the land falling within the permissible area of the mortgagee and not the mortgagor. This plea of the petitioner was conceded to by the representative of the State before the Collector, consequently he allowed the review petition and ordered that the land in dispute should not be utilised for the resettlement of the tenants till it is redeemed. It may be mentioned here that in the meantime certain tenants had been resettled on the land declared surplus in the hands of the petitioner. These tenants went up in appeal to the Commissioner against the order of the Collector dated 9th of November, 1967. Since the Collector had reviewed the previous order of the Collector without permission of the Commissioner, that order was set aside by the Commissioner on 19th of November, 1968. The Commissioner, however, left the matter open to the Collector. He held that in case the Collector thought it fit, he could make a reference to the Commissioner for review of the earlier order. After that the petitioner filed an application for review of the order dated 26th of November, 1959 before the Collector, Nuh. The Collector dismissed this application on the plea that vide mutation Nos. 543 and 540 dated 25th of December, 1962, the land in dispute stood redeemed. Under these circumstances, he held that there was no necessity to take any further action in the matter and the application of the petitioner was dismissed.

(3.) Mr. H.L. Sarin, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the order of the Collector is manifestly illegal and unjust. According to the learned counsel, the land in dispute was under mortgage at the appointed day and as such could not be taken into account while determining the surplus area and that the order passed by the Collector on 9th of November, 1967 was perfectly a legal, valid and just order.