HAR GOBIND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the petitioner was owner of land in west Pakistan. On migration to India, he was allotted 39 81 standard Acres in village Hizzrawan Khrurd, District Hissar, His uncle Ladha Ram was also a land owner in West Pakistan. He migrated to India and died here on August 28, 1948. In iieu of his land, the petitioner was allotted 31. 82 standard Acres of land in India. Thus the petitioner's total holding came to 71 - -63 Standard Acres. Proceedings under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were started against him by the Authorities. The Financial Commissioner in his order dated December 20, 1966, held that the petitioner cannot be treated as an allottee of the area got by him from his uncle and, therefore, he was not entitled to retain 50 Standard Acres from the total land of 71 -63 Standard Acres. He has filed this writ petition against the above said order of the Financial Commissioner.

(2.) THE sole question that arises now for determination is as to whether the, petitioner would be deemed to be an allottee with regard to land measuring 31. 82 Standard Acres which he got from his uncle and is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of sub clause (b) of proviso (if) to sub section (3) of section 2 of the Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the death of Ladha Ram, the petitioner was allotted the aforesaid land of his uncle and, therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of the said clause. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner got that land by inheritance from Ladha Ram and therefore, he was net entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid sub -clause.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is consequently dismissed. The parties through their counsel are directed to appeal before the Collector Agrarian, Fatebad, on March 30, 1979.