STATE OF HARYANA Vs. NIHAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, praying for invoking suo motu powers of the Financial Commissioner and calling for the record relevant to the order dated 31.8.1978 passed by the Prescribed Authority-cum-SDO (C) Rewari alleging that the Prescribed Authority has wrongly given one additional unit in the name of Hari Om son of landowner- petitioner on basis of forged school certificate produced by the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent-landowner Nihal Singh filed a declaration on Form-I on 16.8.1976 and the Prescribed Authority-cum-SDO (C) Rewari vide his order dated 31.8.1978 declared 1 kanal 1 marla as surplus area leaving 604 kanal 8 marla 'C' category land with the landowner-respondent equal to 1-2/5 Units. The State-petitioner has now filed the present revision petition against that order stating that the respondent owned 638 kanal 13 marla 'C' category land and that he was entitled for 517 kanal 3 marla 'C' category land as his permissible area and 121 kanal 10 marla should have been declared as surplus.

(3.) THE counsel for the respondent-landlord states that the revision petition should be dismissed having been filed after 21 years as it is badly delayed and time barred. It is argued that the delay of such a long time cannot be considered reasonable in terms of decision of Loku Ram's case (supra). The counsel further states that Hari Om, son of the respondent was actually born on 5.10.1970 as brought out by the School Certificate (p. 37 of PA's file). It is argued that even if he is considered to have been born on 5.6.1971 as alleged by the petitioner even then he was eligible for additional unit equal to 1/5th of permissible area of primary unit. In this regard reliance is placed on 1988 PLJ 358 wherein it was held that a son born before 23rd December, 1972 (day of coming into force of Act) but after appointed day i.e. 24.1.1971 is entitled to allotment of additional unit. Accordingly, the counsel prays that the revision petition be dismissed.