JATINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of order Annexure-PD passed on 15th March, 1982 by Respondent No. 3, the Collector, Shimla Sub-Division, order Annexure-PE passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division on 24th January, 1984 and order Annexure-PG passed on 22nd July, 1985 by Respondent No. 2, the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) Petitioner being a land-owner held and possessed 327 bighas 12 biswas of land situate in village Bagain, Tehsil Suni, District Shimla. On coming into force of the H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (Act No. 19 of 1973), (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), a draft statement was served by Respondent No. 3 on the Petitioner under Section 10 of the Act, after having obtained the requisite information from the field staff under Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act, showing therein, amongst Ors. , the particulars of the total land held by the Petitioner, the land which according to Collector was liable to be declared surplus and the land which was to be exempted from the operation of the Ceiling Act. On show cause notice having been served, objections were preferred by the Petitioner stating therein that he was not covered under the provisions of the Act since his holding as on the 'appointed day' was within the permissible limit. Some of the lands which the Collector had shown to be belonging to him were in fact sold by him to various persons much prior to the appointed day. After receipt of the objections, at the time of finalisation of this statement, again show cause notice was served, but the Petitioner could not put in appearance. The third Respondent proceeded to dispose of the case by making some slight modifications to the draft statement declaring 166 bighas 15 biswas of land as surplus. 233 bighas 17 biswas of land was held to have been sold after the appointed day and as such the same was included in the Petitioner's holding

(3.) The order passed by Respondent No. 3 on 12th March, 1975 was challenged by the Petitioner in revision before Financial Commissioner, who, on 6th October, 1975 set aside the order and remanded the case to the Collector for fresh decision, in accordance with law. Respondent No. 3 took notice of the three sale transactions effected by the Petitioner with respect of 185-3 Bighas of land, but held that the transfers had been effected after the appointed day, therefore, this land was required to be considered as a part of the Petitioner's holding for determining the surplus area since, according to him, transactions were not bonafide. On 26th June, 1976, the Collector passed an order declaring 141-16 Bighas of land as surplus Against this order, an appeal was preferred by the Petitioner to the Divisional Commissioner, who through order Annexure-PE dated 22nd August, 1978 set aside the Collector's order and remanded the same for a fresh decision, in the light of the observations made by him in his order. The Divisional Commissioner noticed in the order that the Petitioner's evidence, that sales had been made much prior to the appointed day, had remained unrebutted and even if the Respondents stand is to be noticed that the transfers had in fact been effected after the appointed day, the same would not become automatically malafide since the Collector was required to discuss the entire evidence led by the Petitioner and then hold as to whether the transfers were bonafide or had been made prior to the appointed day.