HAWA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hawa Singh and others have filed these two Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2339 and 3534 of 1971. As common questions of law and facts are involved in them, they will be disposed of together by this judgment. To appreciate the rival contentions raised in this petition, it will be useful to state the facts in Civil Writ Petition No. 2339 of 1971.

(2.) Hawa Singh and others filed an application on 25th October, 1966 for allotment of land clause 4 of the Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1960 (hereinafter called the Scheme) claiming themselves to be eligible tenants under Section 7-A(1) of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, (hereinafter called the Act). After a summary inquiry as provided under clause 6 of the Scheme, the Collector declared the applicants to be tenants eligible for allotment of surplus area vide his order dated the 13th December, 1966. Consequently, the petitioner-applicants were allotted land out of the surplus area and possession of the same was delivered to them on 31st of October, 1967.

(3.) Kundan Lal and others, respondent Nos. 3 to 6 to the present petition, filed an application to the Collector, Agrarian, Narwana, alleging therein that the land of Devat Ram which had been declared surplus had in fact been allotted to them and that before the possession of that land could be delivered to them, their thumb-impressions were obtained on some statement and later on they came to know that the land had been allotted to Hawa Singh and others, the present petitioners. A report from the Naib Tehsildar, Agrarian, was sought by the Vigilance Officer. It seems that on the basis of the recommendation of this Officer, the Collector, Agrarian Reforms, Narwana, made a report dated 19th January, 1970, to the Commissioner, seeking review of the order passed by the Collector allotting land to the petitioners. It may be mentioned here that the Collector had sent notices to the petitioners before making a report to the Commissioner but the petitioners had not been found in the village and, therefore, they were not served. In fact none of the petitioners was served and appeared before the Collector in the proceedings which culminated in the report to the Commissioner for permission to review. The Commissioner on the basis of this report made by the Collector, granted permission for review of the order of the Collector allotting land to the petitioners. It is admitted in the return made by the State that the petitioners were neither called nor heard before passing this order. After the permission was granted by the Commissioner, the matter was taken up by the Collector, Agrarian, Narwana, who reviewed the earlier order dated 13th of December, 1966, passed by her predecessor. The only basis for review is the report dated 19th January, 1970 which had been sent by the Collector for review of the earlier order. She did not examine any other evidence and solely relied on this report of her predecessor. She reviewed the order and set aside the same and cancelled the allotment in favour of the petitioners. The facts in Civil Writ Petition No. 3534 of 1971 are identical.