CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8208 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 27, 2009 Mukhtiar Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Financial Commissioner, Haryana (DB-II), Chandigarh etc. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Arun Palli, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Ashish Aggarwal & Mr. V.S.Kajila, Mr.Kulwant Singh, Advocates, for respondent Nos.3 to 36. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner, who is a vendee of a land from big land owner, seeks reopening of the case of surplus of big land owner finalised long ago. One Kanwal Preet Singh was a big land owner. His surplus case was decided prior to the consolidation operation in the village, which was done in the year 1965. The surplus case was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8208 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: decided and Form F prepared on 31.12.1960. After consolidation operation, Form F was again finalised on 6.10.1965. As per the petitioner, this was done without affording any opportunity of hearing to the big land owner. As a result of this, fresh Form F, certain land forming part of reserved area of the big land owner was included in the surplus area. The petitioner happened to purchase some land from the big land owner on 17.7.1967. This had been included in surplus area after consolidation, which is stated to be without any notice to the land owner and hence, the cause of grievance by the petitioner. It is seen that Naib Tehsildar, Agrarian, Panipat, had sent a communication on 16.8.1965 to seek sanction from Special Collector, Chandigarh for preparing fresh Form F. On receipt of reply, fresh Form F was prepared and as earlier directed, action was taken to rehabilitate tenants thereon. Record shows that some time in the year 1980, proceedings were initiated to allot area of the big land owner declared surplus in the year 1965. Part of this area, included the one which was purchased by the petitioner on 17.7.1967. The petitioner accordingly approached the Prescribed Authority for exempting the land purchased by him from the surplus pool. The exemption was granted on 2.11.1981. State Government challenged this order by invoking the powers of the Financial Commissioner. Financial Commissioner set-aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 13.1.1992. With this, one part of the chapter seems to have come to an end. What happened between 1992 to 2005 is not disclosed in the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8208 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: writ petition. It is simply mentioned that in the meanwhile allotment proceedings had remained in abeyance and the final order for transfer of possession to the allottee was issued on 12.12.2005. This seems to have activated the petitioner afresh. He moved an application dated 6.2.2006 before the allotment authority to urge that illegalities were committed while preparing fresh Form F in the year 1965. When allotment authority did not make any reference on this application, the petitioner moved similar application before Special Collector on 1.3.2006. Special Collector, apparently without taking into account the inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner to challenge preparation of Form F, allowed this application and set- aside Form F prepared in the year 1965. He further directed that afresh Form F be prepared in accordance with order dated 31.12.1960. The allottees then challenged the order passed by the Special Collector (Annexure P-8) before Commissioner, Rohtak. The appeal of the allottees was allowed on 14.12.2006 and order, Annexure P-8, was set-aside. The petitioner filed a revision against this order, which is dismissed and he has now filed the present writ petition to impugn order passed by the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner and for restoring the order, Annexure P-8. Mr.Arun Palli, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submits that while preparing Form F in the year 1965, no notice was served to the big land owner and, thus, the petitioner was not aware of the land included in Form F and innocently purchased some land from the big land owner on 17.7.1967. The counsel submits that there being no entry in the revenue records, the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8208 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: petitioner can not be attributed any knowledge under law that he had purchased land which was declared surplus. Counsel for the respondents, however, join serious issues with him in this regard. The record in this case was requisitioned. Reference is made to the sale deed available on record, where it is recited that the petitioner, who is a vendee, would be responsible for the ultimate outcome of any gain or loss or any deficiency in the area of surplus case pending with the Department. Counsel, thus, submits that the petitioner can not plead ignorance either about the surplus proceedings or that the land being purchased may have been declared surplus. He would also point out that after purchasing the land, the petitioner had claimed exemption of his sale from the surplus area, which was declined in the year 1992. This order had become final. Counsel, thus, submits that the petitioner is now seeking to reopen the issue, which has acquired finality long ago. Respondents would also dispute the assertion of the petitioner that no notice was served on the big land owner. In the reply, it is mentioned that notices were issued to the land owners by Halqa Patwari but despite several notices, the land owners did not appear before Naib Tehsildar, Agrarian, Panipat. Only thereafter, the fresh Form F was issued on 2.9.1965 as new field numbers were allotted after consolidation. As per the respondents, the petitioner came into picture much later, when he purchased this land on 17.7.1967 whereas consolidation proceedings had been finalised in September 1965. It is clear that even after purchasing the land, the petitioner made no move for 14 years till he filed application before CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8208 OF 2008 :{ 5 }: the Prescribed Authority on 2.9.1981. Financial Commissioner finally held on 13.1.1992 that the petitioner was not entitled to exemption as sought. The land in question was allotted in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 35 on 22.7.1980. After another 14 years of his earlier move, the petitioner has now filed application before Special Collector on the ground that there was clerical mistake in the fresh Form F issued after consolidation. Commissioner and Financial Commissioner have found that there is no difference in the area. It is noticed that even the original land owner is not in picture and it is only the vendees, who are trying to play imaginary thing in respect of the surplus land case, which had already attained finality long long ago. It was accordingly found that the petitioner, being a vendee, was not competent to get the case reopened or for selecting fresh permissible area. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to some precedents in support of his submission that land owner was to be given an opportunity to reserve his permissible area after consolidation. In this regard, he has referred to the case of State of Punjab (Now Haryana) and others Vs. Mauji, 1977 P.L.J 16. The counsel has also referred to the case of Rajinder Singh and others Vs. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue)Punjab and others, 1980 P.L.J. 154 and Munshi Singh Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rewari and another, 1963 P.L.J. 133. No doubt, in these judgments, a view is taken that land owner is to be given an opportunity to reserve his permissible area after consolidation and that carving out of a surplus area by authorities after consolidation without notice to land owner is ultravires, yet all these cases were CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8208 OF 2008 :{ 6 }: those were land owner had approached the Court in this regard. In the present case, the land owner has not come forward to make a grievance that the was not served a notice while preparing fresh Form F. Though, it appears doubtful if the petitioner could have made this grievance, still the authorities have considered his pleas and have held that there is no change in the fresh Form F and otherwise also no case for interference is made out. The petitioner has also not been able to establish that notice was not served on the big land owner while preparing fresh Form F in the year 1965. Big land owner has not been impleaded as a party in the present writ petition to say that notice was not given to him. The petitioner would not be in any competent position to confirm that notice was or was not served on the big land owner before fresh Form F was prepared. This is to be viewed in the background that the record does indicate that notices were issued to the big land owner but he did not appear despite several notices, when fresh Form F was prepared. Accordingly, the factual back bone on which the case of the petitioner stands, is not fully made out. In these circumstances, the locus of a third person, who is a subsequent vendee from a big land owner, to seek notice for a big land owner and then ask for interference in the order passed 28 years ago would really be a doubtful proposition. The factual position, as noticed, would not require the Court to go into this background. The petitioner also has no explanation to offer to explain the delay of 14 years, from the date when exemption sought by him was denied, and 28 years to seek interference in the preparation of Form F, which was done on 6.10.1965. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed only on the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8208 OF 2008 :{ 7 }: ground of delay and latches. The respondents have been allotted this land in the year 1980 but still are being made to fight for their rights. There is otherwise also no merits in the plea raised by the petitioner and as such, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits. April 27, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE