STATE OF HARYANA Vs. BALJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act seeking that the Financial Commissioner should invoke his suo-motu powers and ask for the record relevant to the order dated 28.4.1977 pased by SDO(C), Dabwali in which it is claimed that an unfair benefit was given in the name of an adult daughter of the landowner.

(2.) THE order of 28.3.1977 passed by the Prescribed Authority Dabwali maintains in terms of Section 9 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter called the Act), that the area for the family, primary unit and additional unit out of the area owned or held by him and members of his family and adult sons living with him are as under :

(3.) IN reply counsel for the respondents did not dispute the first five points but there on argued that no area had been declared surplus as in the year 1977. The matter was decided thereafter when the wife died in 1994 and the husband in 1997. At that time no surplus had been declared whether, rightly or wrongly. At this stage it was argued, that it is not possible to decide the matter in favour of a dead person. Further that whereas the Punjab Act deems that the dead should be presumed to be alive for the purposes of declaration of surplus this does hold under the Haryana Act. In this context 1980 PLJ page 470 applies. The short point taken up by the counsel for respondents was that six units were created for three daughters, adult sons and others. Hence all are small landowners and, therefore, the area has to be determined in terms of the living, not the dead. Section 8 of the Haryana Act is to the effect that in the case of inheritance the owners are protected. Therefore, the State has to verify if surplus exists. Finally, it was argued that no application for condonation of delay has been made and the Court cannot be taken for granted.