MALKIAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition which can be culled out from the pleadings of the parties are that the petitioner was owner in possession of land measuring 692 kanals 6 marlas situate in village Behdala, Post Office Behdala, Tehsil and District Una, H.P. The petitioner had sold land measuring 69 kanals 1 marla prior to the year 1971. The State Legislature had enacted the Act called 'H.P. Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972'. The proceedings were taken under the H.P. Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 and land measuring 341 kanals 4 marlas only of the petitioner was declared to be surplus and vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh. He made an application to the Collector, Una, District Una, H.P. for recalling the order of vestment of the land on 28.8.1986. He had made a specific prayer for re-opening of case No. 78 of 1974. The Collector, Una made a reference to the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) for passing appropriate orders. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) treated the application/representation as revision petition and by exercising the powers under section 20 (3) of the H.P. Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 accepted the recommendations of the District Collector, Una and quashed the order dated 9.12.1972 passed by the Collector holding the land of the petitioner to be surplus. Consequently the matter was remanded back to the District collector, Una for decision afresh on 18.11.1988. The Collector, Una after receiving the report from the Tehsildar, Una passed the order on 24.2.1990 declaring that land owner did not come within the purview of the H.P. Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 and had vacated the draft statement issued to the petitioner and amount of compensation already received by him was directed to be deposited back on or before 9.3.1990. In sequel to the orders passed by the Collector, Una dated 24.2.1990; petitioner deposited the amount of compensation on 12.3.1990. The Settlement Collector granted the requisite permission for correction of entries on 8.10.1995. The mutation was also attested in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) IT appears from the pleadings of the parties that the respondents No.3 to 6 had approached this Court by way of CWP No. 158/2000 against the order passed by the Collector dated 24.2.1990. During the pendency of CWP No. 158/2000, Under Secretary (Revenue) filed a short affidavit stating therein that the Government had made a reference to the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) for taking appropriate action in exercising the revisional jurisdiction pertaining to the impugned order. Consequently the Court had directed the respondent No.2 to decide the revision within a period of three months vide order dated 3rd October, 2001 and the parties were directed to appear before him on 19.10.2001. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 12.12.2001 had quashed and set aside the orders passed by the Collector dated 24.2.1990. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) had declared land measuring 322.6 kanals as surplus.

(3.) MR . H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4 had also supported the order dated 12.12.2001 and contended that the period of ten years cannot be termed unreasonable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. I have heard the parties and perused the record. The scenario which emerges from the above noted facts is that the petitioner's land measuring 341 kanals 13 marlas was declared surplus on 9.12.1974. An application was preferred before the Collector on 28.8.1986 for re-opening of the case bearing No. 78 of 1974. The Collector has made a reference to the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner accepted the reference made by the Collector and quashed and set aside the order of the District Collector dated 9.12.1974. The Collector had called the report from the field agency i.e. Tehsildar, Una and on the basis of his report passed order on 24.2.1990 by holding that the petitioner's land was not covered under the provisions of the H.P. Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972. The petitioner was directed to deposit the compensation on or before 9.3.1990. He had deposited the same in the treasury. The necessary corrections were made in the classification of land and the mutation was also attested. Before the contentions of the learned Advocates are considered, it will be apt to quote section 20 of the H.P. Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 which reads as under: