Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1270 (PNJ)

State of Haryana v. Deceased Sardool Singh

2000-10-19

M.SHANKAR

body2000
ORDER M. Shankar, F. C. - This is a revision petition under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 for invoking the suo motu powers of the Financial Commissioner and for setting aside the order, dated 11.8.1978 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Dabwali and passing any other order or direction in the above case. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased respondent/landowner late Sardul Singh had filed a declaration in Form-I, on 16.8.1976 before the prescribed Authority, Dabwali claiming one primary unit and two separate units - one for his major son and another of his major daughter. Out of a total land of 1058 Kanals 5 Marlas held by all the members of the family including all adult son living with the landowner, he had claimed an area of 1293 Kanals as permissible area and had thus claimed that no surplus area was available. The Prescribed Authority accepted this contention and declared in his order dated 11.8.1978 that no surplus area was available. The present petition is against this order. 3. In the petition, it has been contended that the adult daughter Gurpal Kaur who has been allowed a separate unit was not legally entitled to it and thus an illegality has been committed and an area of 196 Kanals 7 Marlas should have been declared surplus. On behalf of the State the Government pleader has also filed written arguments on the point of delay. 4. In his arguments, the Government pleader cited the rulings mentioned in 1980 PLJ 470 which was subsequently followed in 1989 PLJ 105. These rulings by the Supreme Court upheld the validity of providing a separate unit only to a son and not to a daughter. He also argued that the order under the Act has been passed by the SDO (Civil) and not by the Prescribed Authority. 5. The counsel for the respondent cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the Loku Rams case, 1999(1) PLJ 1 and contended that the delay in filing this revision is not condonable. The counsel also cited 1991 PLJ 257 where the High Court refused to interfere in a matter pertaining to the year 1983, since it was felt that it would not be in the interest of justice to remand the case in 1991. 6. I have heard the Government Pleader and the counsel for the respondent. The counsel also cited 1991 PLJ 257 where the High Court refused to interfere in a matter pertaining to the year 1983, since it was felt that it would not be in the interest of justice to remand the case in 1991. 6. I have heard the Government Pleader and the counsel for the respondent. In so far as the Loku Ram judgment is concerned, the facts of the present case are easily distinguishable and hence that judgment does not apply. The Act clearly provides that a separate unit will be given only to an adult son living with his parents. There is no provision for giving a separate unit to an adult daughter. The Supreme Court has held that this distinction is not illegal or violative of the Constitutional provision. In the circumstances, the order of declaration of surplus area made by the SDO (Civil) is not according to law and is hereby set aside. The Prescribed Authority is directed to issue a fresh order is consonance with the law. To be communicated. Petition accepted.