Case: Kishan Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and Others

2. The facts are as followsThe appellant owns land in Village Desu Malkhana, Tehsil Sirsa, District Hissar in the State of Haryana.3. In proceedings under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Collector Surplus Area, Sirsa, on February 21, 1961, held that since the total holding of the appellant did not exceed 30 standard acres, there was no surplus area with him.4. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the Collector that the appellant was, in fact, holding much more than the ceiling of 60 ordinary acres fixed under Section 2(2) of the Act. He, therefore, issued notice to the appellant, why the order be nor reviewed. According to the recital in the Collectors order, this notice was served on him. The appellant did not appear and on June 5, 1962, the Collector proceeding ex parte against the appellant, reviewed his earlier order and declared 30.80 ordinary acres equivalent to 11.37 standard acres as surplus area with the appellant.5. About 4 or 5 years thereafter, the appellant filed an application before the Collector, for review of his order dated June 5, 1962. The Collector rejected the same by a summary order dated January 27, 1967.6. Against that order, the appellant went in Revision before the Commissioner, who rejected the same by an order dated November 15, 1967.7. The appellants further Revision before the Financial Commissioner met the same fate on April 22, 1968.8. On August 18, 1968, the appellant filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, praying for quashing the aforesaid orders dated June 5, 1962/January 27, 1967, November 15, 1967 and April 22, 1968, of the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, respectively. The challenge was based on these grounds :(i) The order dated June 5, 1962 was illegal and against the principles of natural justice, as the same was passed ex parte without giving any opportunity to the writ petitioner to be heard in the matter.(ii) An area of more than 20 bighas of Banjar Qadim and Gair Mumkin quality, which did not fall within the definition of "land" in the Act, was illegally taken into account in determining the "surplus area".(iii) There are old tenants in continuous cultivating possession over a part of the total holding of the petitioner since before the coming into force of the Act, and the area under such tenants had to be excluded from the purview of surplus proceedings.(iv) In any case, under the Act, the petitioner is entitled to a minimum "permissible area" of 30 standard acres.9. No copy of the petition, which is said to have been filed by the appellant before the Collector requesting for review of his order dated June 5, 1962, was filed before the High Court. An uncertified copy dated November 4, 1965 has now been placed before us at the time of arguments by the learned counsel for the appellant.

Reasoning: 19. Be that as it may, it seems that even in Revision before the Commissioner, the petitioner did not give the survey numbers or particulars of the land which was alleged to be banjar qadim and ghair mumkin rasta. He simply said that more than 20 acres was banjar qadim and ghair mumkin rasta and, as such, it did not come within the definition of land and should have been excluded from calculation. Even in this writ petition, he did not give particulars of the area alleged to be banjar and ghair mumkin. No extract from the Jamabandi or Khasra Girdawari relating to the year 1953 was filed. The uncertified copy now furnished by the appellant, which purports to be of the Collectors order dated January 27, 1967, does not show that any copy of the Khasra Girdawari or Jamabandi was produced before him even at this stage.20. In the absence of any evidence on the record, learned counsel for the State does not concede that any banjar and ghair mumkin area (beyond 8 biswas) was included in the holding of the appellant for computing the surplus area. At best, it remains a disputed question of fact whether any banjar qadim and ghair mumkin area, has been included in the permissible area of the appellant.21. In the absence of any authentic proof, such as copies of the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari of the relevant year, the High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition in limine.