CWP No.7922 of 1989 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.7922 of 1989 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.12.2010 ***** Bharto Devi and Anr. ... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and Ors. ... Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. K.K. Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Goripuria, DAG, Haryana. ***** RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL) The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing the impugned orders dated 5th January, 1987 (Annexure P-4) and 24th November, 1987 (Annexure P-5) whereby holding that the petitioners do not have any right to claim of the benefit of 6th child for declaration of permissible area. The petitioner No.1 filed a declaration form under Section 9 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to be as 'the Act'), and the Rule 6(iii) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to be as 'the Rules'). The petitioner and her husband Kishan Lal were holding the land in two districts i.e. Kurukshetra and Jind. On submission of the form, the matter CWP No.7922 of 1989 (O&M) 2 was referred to Tehsildars of the two districts who submitted their reports after verification. The information supplied by the Tehsildars was further verified, compared and checked by Naib Tehsildar (Surplus). The report submitted by the Naib Tehsildar (Surplus) is Annexure P-1. This report contains the details of family members of petitioner. In this information, no reference was made regarding death of daughter of Smt. Bharto Devi i.e. Mohindro. During the pendency of the decision, the petitioner had filed an affidavit before the Collector stating that she being illitrate lady, could not refer regarding her eldest duaghter Smt. Tejo Devi. She claimed one unit for her 6th child. In the affidavit, the name of 6th child is described as Tejo alias Karmo and the date of birth is 4th November, 1960. P-2 is the birth certificate issued by the Health Department. Kishan Lal husband of the petitioner had died on 9th October, 1981. The estate of Kishan Lal was inherited by petitioners Sat Narain, Tejo Devi, Vidya Devi and Sunita Devi. Mutation was sanctioned in their favour on 28th May, 1982 vide mutation No.331. This fact has been recorded in Annexure P-1, itself. The Special Collector vide order dated 5th January, 1987 (Annexure P-4) held that 4 children of the declarant were born before the appointed day i.e. 24th January, 1971 and the youngest child Sunita was born on 30th June, 1976 after the CWP No.7922 of 1989 (O&M) 3 appointed day. The petitioner was given benefit of 4 minor children in calculating permissible area. The area of 1-1/5 unit which comes to 517 Kanal 3 Marla of 'C' category land was declared permissible area. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the appellant had not mentioned name of the 6th child in the declaration form and it was impossible for any mother to forget the names of her children. The affidavit filed by the petitioner has also been rejected. In the written statement Annexure R-2 has been annexed, which is an affidavit filed by petitioner-Bharto Devi in which the date of birth of Tejo Devi has been mentioned as 6th March, 1959. In paragraph 3 of the written statement, it has been disputed that the date of birth in birth certificate of Tejo Devi alias Karmo was shown as 4th November, 1960 and date of birth of Prithi Singh son of petitioner was shown as 8th May, 1961. There is only difference of six months in birth of both the children, therefore, the affidavit of petitioner was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that from the affidavit annexed with the written statement, it is clear that the date of birth of Tejo Devi is 6th March, 1959 and in the order dated 5th January, 1987(Annexure P-4) passed by the Special Collector, there is no dispute that Tejo Devi was not the daughter of the petitioner. As a matter of fact there is no CWP No.7922 of 1989 (O&M) 4 dispute that she was the child of the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel and from the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that there is a dispute in regard to the date of birth of Tejo Devi as per the documents filed by the respondent Annexure R-II. After perusal of Annexure P-1, which is a report submitted by Naib Tehsildar (Surplus) after verification done by two Tehsildars of districts Kurukshetra and Jind, it has been mentioned that Tejo Devi had succeeded on the land left by her father. In this document death of one of the daughters i.e. Mohindro could not be clarified. There appears to be an irregularity in the proceedings while considering the share of Tejo Devi, while calculating the permissible area of the petitioner. In view thereof, the orders Annexure P-4 and P-5 attached with the writ petition are quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner, Ambala Division to decide the matter afresh after affording opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in relation to the date of birth of Tejo Devi. The parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner, Ambala Division on 4th February, 2011. DECEMBER 21, 2010 (RITU BAHRI) RAJAN JUDGE CWP No.7922 of 1989 (O&M) 5