IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17036 of 2009 Date of decision : 09.11.2009 Karam Singh ….. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others ….. Respondents Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner on 15.11.1996 was allotted land measuring 16 kanals 6 marlas of the surplus property of one Smt. Patti Devi who was a big land owner. Since then, the petitioner has been in cultivating possession of the said land. Smt. Leela Devi (respondent No.4) daughter of Smt. Patti Devi challenged the order of the allotment authority declaring her land surplus on CWP No. 17036 of 2009 [2] the ground that the property which was declared surplus was ‘banjar kadim’ and ‘gair mumkin chow’. Therefore, the same did not fall under the definition of “land” as held in Munshi Ram v. The Financial Commissioner Haryana, 1979 PLJ 182 (SC). It is submitted that the order of surplus allotment was challenged after 19 years. However, the SDM, Naraingarh, the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner, Ambala Range Ambala accepted the claim of Smt. Leela Devi (respondent No.4) daughter of Smt. Patti Devi. It is submitted that the property was declared surplus in accordance with the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 (“Act” for short) according to which ‘banjar kadim’ and ‘gair mumkin chow’ fall within the definition of “land” in terms of Section 3(g) of the Act. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner filed ROR No.711 of 2008-09 before the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana (respondent No.2) along with an application for stay. It is submitted that the application for stay is not being considered despite the case having been listed before the learned Financial Commissioner. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a direction is liable to be issued for deciding the stay application filed by the petitioner with ROR No.711 of 2008-09. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, it may be noticed that there is no material available on record to show as to how many matters CWP No. 17036 of 2009 [3] are listed before the learned Financial Commissioner. This Court cannot ascertain as to what is the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis the other stay applications listed before the learned Financial Commissioner. Besides, the matter was last listed on 20.10.2009. However, it is not clear as to why it was adjourned. The petitioner it is stated has also moved a representation 15.10.2009 (Annexure P1) to the Chief Secretary for fixation of his ROR before the learned Financial Commissioner. The question regarding disposal of the stay applications are within the domain of the learned Financial Commissioner. It is for the Financial Commissioner to call for the record and dispose of the application. In any case, it may be noticed that according to the petitioner, the land owner has filed an application for execution of the impugned orders on 1.10.2009. In the circumstances, it would be just and expedient that the petitioner files an application before the learned Financial Commissioner itself for hearing of the stay application. It is needless to mention in case such an application is filed, the learned Financial Commissioner shall duly consider the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE November 09, 2009 amit