CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4216 of 1990 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4216 of 1990 DATE OF DECISION: JULY 11, 2011 Chander Bhan ..Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ....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. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the impugned orders Annexures P-1, P-3 & P-5 on the ground that these orders have adversely affected his rights and the petitioner has prayed for declaration to the effect that he does not hold any surplus land as held by the impugned orders. The petitioner had filed a declaration under Section 9 of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Special Collector, Haryana, pleading his holding of a land in Village Gheer, Sambhi, Biana, Salarpur, Tehsil & Distt. 1 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4216 of 1990 Karnal and also in Village Tosham. On the appointed day i.e. 24.1.1975, the family of the petitioner consisted of the petitioner himself, his wife and two adult sons and a minor daughter namely Promila, who was born in January, 1956. The total holding of the land of the petitioner and his family in both the Districts was 1963 kanal and 17 marlas. The petitioner claimed benefits of bona fide sales effected in both villages between 24.1.1971 to 23.12.1972 i.e. the date of commencement of the Act. Some sales were affected to tenants, whereas others were to strangers and landless persons. The total area so transferred between these dates was 242 kanals 7 marlas. The petitioner has produced the mutations duly sanctioned by competent authority in favour of the vendees. The petitioner had filed an affidavit that the vendees were not related to him in any manner. The said land had been sold through 12 sales deeds out of these 7 sale deeds were affected in favour of the tenants. In addition, the petitioner claimed three units for his family one for himself and other for his two adult sons. When the petitioner produced the evidence in support of this before the Special Collector, he also claimed the benefit of 64 kanal land ownership of which was transferred being subject matter of decree of Civil Court passed in the year 1969. The petitioner claimed yet another benefit for land measuring 623 kanal 18 marlas in Village Tosham, which according to him was under acquisition. It was brought to the notice of the Land Acquisition Collector that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 12.11.1986. This was relating to 2 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4216 of 1990 land in Village Tosham, which was proposed to be acquired for public purpose i.e. for forest plantation since no notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. The Special Collector declined the relief on remaining ground except for granting exempted 242 kanals 7 marlas land, which had been sold through different sale deeds in favour of several tenants/vendees. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, which was also dismissed. The petitioner had then approached the Financial Commissioner, who not only upheld the order passed by the appellate authority but even interferred in that part of the order whereby 242 kanals 7 marlas land had been excluded from the permissible area of the petitioner. The petitioner, accordingly, has filed this writ petition to impugn order dated 21.2.1990 passed by the Financial Commissioner. As per the petitioner, the order passed by the Financial Commissioner suffers from violation of principle of natural justice. The petitioner contends that there was no challenge made by the State or any authority to that part of the order, whereby land of 242 kanals 7 marlas was excluded from his permissible area. Counsel would not contest the suo motu powers of the Financial Commissioner to interfere in such like orders, but would submit that before doing so, the Financial Commissioner ought to have put the petitioner to notice, so that he could have offered the justification of the exclusion. Submission is that the Financial Commissioner having not done so obviously would mean that he has not followed the principle 3 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4216 of 1990 of natural justice and this aspect took the petitioner by surprise. The counsel further contends that his other submission have also not been rightly considered by the Finance Commissioner. As per the counsel, the Civil Court decree could not have been easily ignored, which was much prior to the date of proceeding before the Special Collector. Also the notification issued for acquiring the land would certainly mean that such land would not remain in possession of the petitioner. Merely because notification under Section 6 was issued subsequent to the date of proceedings would not make much difference, says the counsel. Mr. Rathee says that there is no merit in the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and the Financial Commissioner was justified in invoking his revisional power to interfere in that part of the order, which was certainly not found fair and reasonable. I find some merit in the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. No doubt, the Financial Commissioner has vide revisional power under Section 18(6) of the Act and could exercise such powers to remove the illegalities and infirmity and interfere in the case, but it must not be ignored that the State has not filed any application being aggrieved against this part of the order. The powers to interferer being there, the fairness demanded that the Financial Commissioner issued notice to the petitioner, so as to enable him to explain what the petitioner may have to urge in this regard. This would be needed to ensure adherence to principle of natural justice. That being so, the petitioner was put to prejudice on 4 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4216 of 1990 account of violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, the case may deserve to be remanded back to the Financial Commissioner to reconsider this aspect and hear the petitioner on this count before passing any order. Since the case is being remanded, the petitioner may also be given liberty to make submissions on merit on remaining two points, though I have prima facie not found anything wrong to call for interference in that part of the order. The Financial Commissioner may still consider them in accordance with law. The writ petition is partly allowed. The case is remanded back to Financial Commissioner to reconsider the same in the light of observations made as above. July 11, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE 5