CWP No. 1590 of 1987 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1590 of 1987 Date of Decision: December 01, 2010 Roopa ...... Petitioner Versus State of Hryana and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Radheshyam Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Dr.Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. L.N.Verma, Advocate for respondent No.5. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. Respondent No.5 was owner of 594 kanals 3 marlas of land on the appointed date. The petitioner was statedly in adverse possession of 144 kanals out of the said land. In the year 1975 he filed a suit claiming that he had become owner by adverse possession. That suit was decreed by way of compromise whereby the petitioner gave up 64 kanals of land and was declared owner of 80 kanals of land. Five years thereafter when the case of respondent No.5 was considered under the Haryana Ceiling on Lands Holdings Act, 1972(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) she was CWP No. 1590 of 1987 2 ultimately allowed to make selection and, in that selection of her permissible area she did not include 80 kanals of land the ownership of which had by then vested in the petitioner and consequently along with some other land the said 80 kanals of land was also declared surplus. Both the sides have argued vehemently on the bona fide or otherwise of the said transfer but to my mind the major determinant of this case is the fact that even though on that date the petitioner was shown to be owner of 80 kanals of land in the revenue record, he was not heard by the prescribed authority. Once that be so, the whole exercise, in my considered opinion must fail. Which is not to say that the authorities under the Act are bound to take a particular decision on the merits of the case but only that opportunity must be given to the petitioner to forward whatever contentions he wants to raise. On this short ground this writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the prescribed authority viz. S.D.O.(Civil) Elnabad, District Sirsa. Parties through counsel are directed to appear before the prescribed authority on 05.01.2011. (AJAY TEWARI) December 01, 2010 JUDGE sunita