SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an order dated 30.4.1969 the Collector, Agrarian, Jagadhri declared an area of 63 standard acres and 3/4 units (545 Kanals 11 marlas) as surplus in the hands of the petitioner under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short the Punjab Act). The petitioner had selected its permissible area of 30 standard acres as per the details given in Forrn-E. How-ever, the petitioner moved an application before the Collector, Ambala with a prayer that surplus area be not utilised on the ground that the petitioner was running a well run farm on that area. The exemption was claimed under Rule 8 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The Collector accepted the application on 8.7.1970 and ex-empted the surplus land for being utilised for the settlement of tenants. Thereafter, the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 1972 (hereinafter called the Haryana Act) came into force with effect from 24.1.1971 and in terms of Section 32 of this Act the exemption granted in relation to utilisation of surplus area, orchard, tea estate or well run farm by virtue of the provisions of Punjab Act had been withdrawn. The petitioner filed a declaration before the Prescribed Authority under the Haryana Act and by an order dated 16.5.1984 an area of 122 Kanals 13 Marlas was declared as surplus in the hands of the petitioner in addition to the area of 545 Kanals 11 Marlas already declared surplus under the Punjab Act. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority before the Collector. It was contended that the order dated 30.4.1969 declaring the surplus area under the Punjab Act was not a complete order inasmuch as Form-F had not been issued and, therefore, the petitioner was deprived of his right to file an appeal against that order. Some judgments of this Court were cited in support of this contention. Some other contentions were also raised with which we are not concerned because those were not pressed before us. The Collector did not find any merit in the appeal and rejected the same by his order dated 6.7.1993. Feeling aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Ambala Division and reiterated its stand that non-issuance of Form-F rendered the order dated 30.4.1969 illegal and without jurisdiction. This contention again did not find favour with the Commissioner who dismissed the revision petition on 19.11.1993. Still not satisfied, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Act which also met with the same fate. It is against these orders that the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the constitution.

(2.) We have heard counsel for the parties who have taken us through the impugned orders. The only argument advanced before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the same which was advanced before the authorities below. It is contended that after declaration of the surplus area by the Collector on 30.4.1969 the petitioner was not furnished with Form-F containing the details of the land which was declared surplus and, therefore, the said order was null and void as the petitioner was deprived of his right to file an appeal. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Vir Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. , (1970)72 P.L.R. 304, Bharat Starch and Chemicals Ltd v. State of Haryana and Ors. , 1994 P.L.J. 392 and Chandgi v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, 1984 P.L.J. 437, We have gone through the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner but are unable to agree with him. These decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case because the surplus case was decided by the Collector in the presence of the appellant on 30.4.1969. The petitioner had selected its permissible area of 30 standard acres details of which were mentioned in Form-E filed by it. It is obvious that the petitioner had no intention of filing an appeal against this order as it filed an application under Rule 8 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules. 1956 seeking exemption from the utilisation of the area on the ground of maintaining a well run farm. It is also worth mentioning that when the petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Collector dated 16,5.1984 declaring an additional area as surplus under the Haryana Act, it did not even allege that Form-F had not been supplied to it after the declaration of the surplus area on 30.4.1969. As a matter of fact, the order dated 30.4.1969 was not challenged in that appeal and it appears that this plea was an after thought which was taken only with a view to retain the surplus land as long as it could. If the petitioner was really keen in filing an appeal against the order dated 30.4.1969, it could have approached the Collector to supply Fork-F to it, but it did not do so. In any case the petitioner was aware of the order dated 30.4.1969 passed by the Collector and since it had already selected its permissible area by submitting Form-E there is no reason why it could not have filed an appeal against this order. Obviously the petitioner had no intention of filing an appeal and non-issuance of Form-F to it was, therefore, of no consequence and this will not render the order dated 30.4.1969 invalid.

(3.) No other point was raised.