In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... (1) C.W.P. No.14284 of 2007 ..... Date of decision:10.9.2009 Savitri .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents .... (2) C.W.P. No.14285 of 2007 ..... Bhagta and others .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents .... (3) C.W.P. No.14373 of 2007 ..... Parkash and others .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This order will dispose of CWP Nos.14284, 14285 and 14373 of 2007 as they involve somewhat similar facts and circumstances. Agricultural land of Telu Ram and Bani Singh sons of C.W.P. Nos.14284/2007 etc. [2] Aflatoon residents of Mowana measuring 1850 Kanals 2 Marlas was declared surplus vide orders dated 26.8.1960 and 28.11.1961 passed by the Collector, Agrarian, Kaithal. The said land was allotted to 140 eligible persons including the petitioners vide order dated 16.9.1976. As per Khatauni, Bhagta son of Kundan (petitioner No.1 in CWP No.14285 of 2007) deposited his instalments of compensation on 26.11.2001. Besides, 12 other allottees deposited only one instalment each. The remaining 127 allottees failed to deposit the compensation. In fact, the instalment of compensation was liable to be deposited within one month of the allotment. After declaration of the surplus land, the heirs of Telu Ram and Bani Singh, namely, Krishan Singh and others filed CWP No.12 of 1986, besides, Padam Singh and others filed CWP No.14 of 1986 in this Court wherein the order declaring the land as surplus was assailed. This Court vide order dated 1.4.1986 (Annexure-R.1) disposed of 5 writ petitions including CWP Nos.12 and 14 of 1986. In terms of the order passed by this Court the writ petitions were allowed. Reliance was placed on the case of Sarmukh Singh v. State of Punjab, 1971 PLJ 391, wherein it was held that if the land owner, in whose hands an area of land is declared surplus, dies and the land is inherited before utilization thereof, and the heirs are small land owners, the order declaring the area surplus in the hands of the deceased becomes inoperative. The agrarian authorities were, however, given liberty to re- determine the question whether any part of the land that was subject matter of dispute is surplus or not. The exercise was to be carried out after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in the said writ petitions and taking proceedings in accordance with law. The grievance of the C.W.P. Nos.14284/2007 etc. [3] petitioners, who are the allottees is that they were not given any effective notice to deposit the amount of compensation payable besides a Division Bench of learned Financial Commissioners vide order dated 30.5.2007 (Annexure-P.4) has held that service of notice was not proper and in some cases the service was fraudulent. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioners are liable to be given fresh opportunity to deposit the amount of compensation. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the instalments of compensation were to be deposited by the allottees within one month after the allotment. In the present case the allotment of land was made vide order dated 16.9.1976 but none of the 140 allottees deposited the instalments of compensation within the stipulated period. As such, the allotment stood cancelled. It is further submitted that the order dated 26.9.1986 passed by the Collector, Agrarian upholding the orders dated 26.8.1960 and 28.11.1961 passed by the Collector, Agrarian, Kaithal; besides, the order dated 26.5.2000 passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar in appeal and the order dated 14.2.2002 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana have been challenged by the heirs of the original land owners before the Civil Court, in which an order of status quo has been passed. It is also submitted that, in any case, Bhagta and Soran (petitioners No.1 and 7 in CWP No.14285) have concealed material fact while submitting their applications for allotment of land meant for landless. In fact, they have agricultural land but did not show the same in their applications for allotment of land being landless. Besides, it is submitted that the Division Bench of the Financial Commissioner has passed a reasoned order dated 30.5.2007 (Annexure-P.4) which calls for no C.W.P. Nos.14284/2007 etc. [4] interference. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the record. The factual position is not in dispute that land measuring 1850 Kanals 2 Marlas of Telu Ram and Bani Singh was declared surplus by the Collector, Agrarian, Kaithal vide orders dated 26.8.1960 and 28.11.1961. On 16.9.1976, part of the land was allotted to the petitioners in the respective petitions along with other eligible persons on the ground that they were landless persons. The declaration of surplus area by the Collector, Agrarian, Kaithal of the land of Telu Ram and Bani Singh was assailed by way of CWP No.12 of 1986 and CWP No.14 of 1986 in this Court. The orders dated 26.8.1960 and 28.11.1961 declaring the land as surplus were set aside and the agrarian authorities were to make fresh determination of the surplus area. In the re-determination of the surplus area the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Allotment Authority issued notices to the land owners. Thereafter, vide order dated 26.9.1988 the said land measuring 1850 Kanals 2 Marlas was again declared surplus. The legal heirs of Telu Ram and Bani Singh, who were the land owners challenged the proceedings whereby land measuring 1850 Kanals 2 Marlas had again been declared surplus. The learned Financial Commissioner has vide order dated 14.2.2002 dismissed the revision petition of the land owners. Accordingly, the land measuring 1850 Kanals 2 Marlas was declared to be surplus area of the land owners. It was ordered that the surplus area be utilized within a period of 60 days as per the scheme of utilization. The learned Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-(Prescribed Authority) took up the cases for allotment of land. It was observed in terms C.W.P. Nos.14284/2007 etc. [5] order dated 14.1.2005 (Annexure-P.1) that except for Bhagta son of Kundan (petitioner No.1 in CWP No.14285 of 2007) notices were issued to 139 persons but none had submitted any objection from which it was revealed that the allottees had no interest to deposit the instalment of the allotted land in the Government Treasury. Therefore, the surplus land of Telu Ram and Bani Singh sons of Aftlatoon which was allotted to 140 persons was ordered to be cancelled. Besides, the Naib Tehsildar (Agrarian) was ordered to initiate proceedings as per rules for re-allotment of the surplus land in terms of the order dated 14.2.2002 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana. The petitioners including other allottees aggrieved against the said order dated 14.1.2005 passed by the Allotment Authority/Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Safidon filed appeals on 22.11.2005 before the Collector, Jind. The Collector, Jind vide order dated 8.2.2006 (Annexure- P.2) dismissed the appeals. It was noticed that the counsel for the allottees who were the appellants had stated that the allottees had not been granted an opportunity of hearing and notices had been sent to dead persons. It was, however, observed that the allotment itself had been cancelled in terms of the order dated 1.4.1986 (Annexure-R.1) passed by this Court and, therefore, there remained no need to issue notices to the allottees. Besides, 127 allottees had not deposited any instalment and 12 allottees had deposited only one instalment. Moreover, for re-allotment of surplus land of the land owners, the proceedings were being carried out by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Safidon. In the said circumstances, it was found that there was no merit in the appeal, which was dismissed. The allottees aggrieved against the order dated 8.2.2006 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the C.W.P. Nos.14284/2007 etc. [6] Collector, District Jind filed revision petition before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar who vide order dated 30.9.2006 (Annexure-P.3) dismissed the same. It was held that there was no error in the orders under appeal of the Allotment Authority and Collector, Jind and it was justifiable to conduct the proceedings of re-allotment in which all the old allottees can submit their applications afresh. In view of the above the revision was held to be meritless. The allottees aggrieved against the order dated 30.9.2006 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar preferred a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana which has been disposed of by a Division Bench of the learned Financial Commissioners vide order dated 30.5.2007 (Annexure-P.4). The Division Bench of the Financial Commissioners noticed the aspect regarding service of notice and that in the present case, though notices were issued to all the allottees but the service was not proper and in some cases it was fraudulent. However, it was revealed from the records that out of 140 allottees only 12 were reported to have deposited the first instalment and one Shri Bhagta (petitioner No.1 in CWP No.14285 of 2007) had deposited all the instalments in lump-sum. It was found from the list of the allottees that 11 allottees deposited the first instalment in the year 1977, the 12th allottee i.e. Sri Chand son of Belu deposited the first instalment in the year 1982. Bhagta aforesaid had deposited the instalments in lump-sum on 26.11.2001. The remaining allottees did not even bother to deposit the first instalment. It was, therefore, held that they had lost their right to that allotment. It was also revealed that out of the 13 allottees who deposited the instalments only 7 had filed the revision petition. It was further noticed that as per the C.W.P. Nos.14284/2007 etc. [7] scheme of allotment, the allottees were required to deposit the first instalment within a month of allotment and only then they would be given possession of land, failing which their allotment was liable to be cancelled. None of the allottees, it was observed, fulfilled the said condition. Still on technical ground that the allottees were not served the notices as per the law and they were not heard, the case could be remanded back to the Allotment Authority for giving them fresh opportunity of hearing. It was, however, felt that this would prolong the proceedings which were already 30 years old. The ends of justice, it was observed, would be met with a direction to the Allotment Authority that while making fresh allotment of surplus land, the petitioners who have already deposited the instalment and allegedly possession was given to them could be re-allotted the land if they were otherwise eligible under the Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1976 in respect of the allottees who had made deposits. In the afore-noticed circumstances, it is admitted and undisputed position that out of 140 allottees who had been allotted the land only 12 allottees had deposited the first instalment and one Shri Bhagta had deposited all the instalments in lump-sum. Therefore, even if the petitiones were not served, the Division Bench of the Financial Commissioners vide order dated 30.5.2007 (Annexure-P.4) has directed the Allotment Authority that while making fresh allotment of the surplus land, the petitioners who had already deposited the first instalment and allegedly possession was given to them could be re-allotted the land if they were otherwise eligible under the Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1976. Therefore, no prejudice is caused to the allottees once they are entitled to have their consideration afresh by submitting applications. C.W.P. Nos.14284/2007 etc. [8] Another aspect that needs to be noticed is that the sole contention of the petitioners is that they were not issued fresh notices when the order dated 14.1.2005 (Annexure-P.1) was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Allotment Authority, Safidon. In this regard, it may be noticed that all the allottees had assailed the said order dated 14.1.2005 by way of appeal before the Collector, District Jind. Therefore, it is to be taken that they were aware and knew of the proceedings that were pending before the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Allotment Authority, Safidon. The petitioners not having deposited the necessary amount by way of instalments in accordance with the scheme of allotment and also not having complied with the conditions of allotment cannot be said to have resulted in prejudice to them. In the circumstances, the Financial Commissioner having held that the persons who had deposited the first instalment and having ordered that their cases be considered in terms of the order dated 30.5.2007 (Annexure-P.4), it cannot be said that there is an error of jurisdiction in the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, which would warrant interference of this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. This is more so for the reason that they are entitled for applying afresh for the allotment of land. All the allottees would be entitled to apply afresh in terms of the order of the Financial Commissioners. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in these writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. September 10, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No