Brij Lal (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc

3. On 26.7.1961, the Collector Surplus Area, Sirsa assessed the surplus area of Pat Ram under the Act. On 24.7.1962 an appeal was filed against the said order before the Commissioner, Ambala Division. But it was not pressed in view of the enactment of Punjab Security of Land Tenures (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1962 (in short Amendment Act). On the appeal by two tenants namely Bishan Singh and Dalip Singh against the order of the Collector dated 26.7.1961, the Commissioner, remanded the surplus area case and directed the Collector to re-decide the issues. Pat Ram died subsequently on 7.2.1966. On 15.7.1969, the Special Collector, Haryana pursuant to the order of remand, initiated proceedings for deciding surplus area case of Pat Ram afresh. His order dated 15.7.1969 is of considerable importance and will be dealt with later. On 23.12.1972, in fact, while the proceedings were pending the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (in short the Haryana Act) came into force. On 20.7.1977 the Sub-Divisional officer (Civil) cum the Prescribed Authority, Dabwali decided the surplus area cases of Sohan Lal, Brij Lal and Hazari Lal under the Haryana Act and held that the total land in respect of each of them was less than the permissible limit. Simlarly the surplus area cases of Dhonkan Ram, Ami Lal and Shankar Lal were decided under the Haryana Act and it was held that there was no surplus area. On 12.10.1989 Brij Lal and others filed an application under the Act for ejectment of the Balbir Singh, Bhola Singh, Jagat Singh and Harpal Singh, sons of Bishan Singh before the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Dabwali on the ground that the appellants were small land owners and they required the land for self cultivation. On 28.8.1991 an order of ejectment was passed. It was held that Balbir Singh and others were not entitled for resettlement on any alternative land as they were already in possession of other land. On 22.1.1992 appeal of the respondents Balbir Singh and others against the order of ejectment was dismissed by the Collector Sirsa. The revision petition filed by the respondents Balbir Singh and others against the order of the Collector was dismissed by the Commissioner. On 8.4.1993 which is a very crucial date, Balbir Singh and others filed revision petition , ROR No. 398 of 1992-93, under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Act for invoking suo moto powers of the Financial Commissioner for setting aside the orders dated 20.7.1977 and 9.8.1977 passed by the SDO (Civil) cum Prescribed Authority, Dabwali regarding the surplus area cases of Sohan Lal, Brij Lal, Hazari Lal and Dhokan Ram under the Haryana Act. On 29.6.1993 Jagat Singh and Harpal Singh, sons of Bishan Singh and Balbir Singh and Bhola Singh, sons of Kartar Singh filed another petition under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Act for invoking suo moto powers of the Financial Commissioner for setting aside the order dated 15.7.1969 of the Special Collector, Haryana. On 12.9.1997 the Financial Commissioner, Haryana passed an order remanding the cases to the Collector, Surplus Area, Sirsa being of the view that the surplus area cases of Pat Ram, notwithstanding his death on 7.2.1966, before the commencement of the Haryana Act, and of his six sons was to be decided under the Act and thereafter the rights of the tenants to purchase the land was to be determined. A review application was filed which was rejected by order dated 10.3.1999. Writ petitions were filed challenging the orders dated 12.9.1997 and 10.3.1999 of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana.

6. Reference in this connection may also be made to Rule 20-D of the Rules which provides that in case a tenant does not take possession of the "surplus area" allotted to him for resettlement within the period specified therefore, the allotment shall be liable to be cancelled and the area allotted to him may be utilised for the resettlement of another tenant. It cannot therefore be dobted that a completed title does not pass to the allottee on a mere order of allotment, and that order is defeasible if the other conditions prescribed by law are not fulfilled.

7. So when the process of utilisation of Nathi's "surplus area" had not been completed by the time his heirs by inheritance made the aforesaid application to the authorities concerned, it was permissible for those authorities to re-examine the question whether there was any "surplus area" at all after Nathi's holding had been inherited by his two (sic) in equal shares so as to reduce the area of the holding of each (sic) them below the permissible area. The High Court therefore (sic) allowed the writ petition of the respondents.

13. The parties shall be permitted to place fresh materials in support of their respective stands if they do not already form part of the record. Since the matter is pending since long, we request the High Court to dispose of the cases as early as practicable preferably by the end of September, 2008.

14. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. There will be no order as to costs.