BADAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners' father, Lakha, was the owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 54 Standard Acres 2-1/4 Units on 21st August, 1956. He furnished his return in Form VII-A as required under Section 32-B of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter called as the Act). The Collector (Agrarian Reforms), Jind vide his order dated 16th May, 1961 (copy Annexure 'A') declared 24 Standard Acres 2-1/4 Units as surplus area in the hands of the petitioners' father. The petitioners' father died on 5th August, 1963. In the meantime, consolidation of holdings operations took place. On 14th September, 1963, the petitioners applied to the Collector Agrarian for reviewing his order dated 16th May, 1961 and brought the factum of the death of their father to his notice, but the Collector dismissed their application vide his order dated 28th July, 1965 (copy annexure 'C') holding that the surplus area in the hands of the petitioners' father was utilised before his death. The petitioners went in appeal before the Commissioner, who dismissed the same vide his order dated 26th August, 1966 (copy Annexure 'D'). The petitioners then filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, which was also dismissed on 8th February, 1967 (copy Annexure 'E'). It is in this situation that the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed.

(2.) Return has been filed on behalf of the official respondents by the Collector Agrarian, Jind.

(3.) Mr. Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioners, canvassed before me that no opportunity was given to the petitioners after the consolidation to select their permissible area and there is no order of the Collector in that behalf. His second contention is that the petitioners' father died on 5th August, 1963 and till then the land declared surplus was not utilised. No return has been filed on behalf of the private respondents. Mr. Gaur pointed out from the official record that notices were issued first to the petitioners' father on 11th April, 1963, which were received back unserved and the second notice was sent on 6th August, 1963 and by that time the father of the petitioners had died and that from the records it is quite apparent that the possession of the surplus area was not delivered to the tenants till the death of the petitioners' father. Ch. Harbhagwan Singh, learned counsel for respondents 10 to 13, says that the respondents-tenants were given possession of the surplus land before the death of the petitioners' father. But this fact is not warranted by the records. It is settled law that after the consolidation, the land-owner is entitled to select his permissible area afresh and in view of the principle of law as laid down in Bhag Singh v. The State of Punjab and another, 1966 PunLJ 238, it is also settled that after the death of the original land-owner, if the surplus land is not utilised, then the surplus area is to be determined afresh. Mr. Naubat Singh, Senior Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana and other official respondents, could not bring to my notice from the records that the surplus land was utilised before the petitioners' father's death.