LAWS(P&H)-1999-8-156

SURJA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On August 31, 1999
SURJA RAM Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURJA Ram and Jagdish, petitioners have filed this revision under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act against the order dated 22.9.1994 passed by the Collector, Sonipat.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that Sh. Moman, father of respondent No. 2 was a big landowner under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The Prescribed Authority vide his order dated 3.6.1960 declared 66 Std. Acre 6-1/4 Units of his land as surplus which stood vested in the State of Haryana under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. However, respondent No. 1 sought exclusion of area declared surplus in respect of Sh. Moman on the ground of mutation sanctioned in his favour to the extent of 1/3rd i.e. 22 Std. Acres 2 Units of land. This application was accepted by the Prescribed Authority but the area of his choice was not allowed to be excluded from this surplus area. The order of the Prescribed Authority dated 12.12.1980 was challenged before the Collector who dismissed the same vide his order dated 18.1.1982. Respondent No. 2 filed a revision before the Commissioner, Ambala Division who vide his order dated 7.4.1983 remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority with the direction that the surplus area may be identified. The learned Counsel said that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers of the land in question for value vide registered sale-deeds dated 14.8.1970 and 2.12.1975 executed by Sh. Moman, Smt. Malhi w/o Moman and Sh. Azad Singh s/o Moman and area comprised in Killa Nos. 4/21/2, 9/13, 18/9 and Khasra No. 21 min. situated in village Barota, Tehsil Gohana, District Gurgaon was sold to the petitioner. He said that Prescribed Authority vide order dated 17.4.1989 decided the petition filed by Azad Singh as per direction of the Commissioner but no conclusion was given in relation to the contention raised by the petitioners. The subsequent appeal before the Collector has also been dismissed. He said that the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 17.4.1989, order dated 22.9.1994 passed by the Collector Sonipat and order dated 7.4.1983 passed by the Commissioner are illegal because Commissioner passed the order without any notice to the petitioners. The learned Commissioner should have heard the petitioner before deciding the case. The Prescribed Authority and learned Collector have gone strictly according to the order of the Commissioner and have not applied their mind before deciding the case. He said that the order dated 7.4.1983 passed by the Commissioner and order dated 17.4.1989 passed by the Prescribed Authority were challenged in ROR No. 402 of 1988-89 and the learned Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 11.4.1990 set aside the order of the Commissioner and remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority to make necessary changes in the area selected by the respondent No. 2. Since, the facts of the present case are also the same and order dated 7.4.1983 of the learned Commissioner has been set aside, the petitioners are entitled to the same relief. They also said that the order of the learned Financial Commissioner was challenged by Azad Singh in the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 9835 of 1990 and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 8.3.1991 by the Division Bench. The learned Counsel cited rulings 1997(2) PLJ 193, 1998(1) PLJ 214, 1990 PLJ 83 and said that the right of vendee has been protected under Sections 8(3) and 9(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and that surplus area at the first instance is to be taken from the area left with the big landowner and the transferee is to be touched only if surplus area cannot be made good from the area left with the landowner. The learned Counsel, therefore, said that the area purchased by the petitioners should not be included in the surplus area. He said that provisions of Sections 8(3) and 9(3) of the Haryana Act should be complied with.

(3.) THE DDA appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 said that the petitioners had no right to be heard while determining the surplus area of the respondent.