Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 756 (PNJ)

State Of Haryana v. Som Nath

2005-07-20

HARJIT SINGH BEDI, VINEY MITTAL

body2005
Judgment H.S.Bedi, J. 1. We have gone through the judgment of learned Single Judge. The learned Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana, vide his order dated 24.6.1980 affirmed the order of the Commissioner, Ambala Division and imposed a penalty of 27 standard acres of land on the land landowners under Section 5(c) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, on the ground that the landowners had not filed the declaration as enjoined under the above said Act. The learned Single Judge in his order dated 19.10.1992 has held as under:- It is unfortunate that the Revenue Officer did not appreciate the correct legal proposition. Even if Hotu Ram had made an error in not filing the declaration as enjoined by Section 5-A of the Act within the period prescribed, penalty could be imposed under Section 5(c) of the Act and the area could be deemed to be a surplus area but before it could be utilised, the landowner had died and the heirs of the landlord were entitled to the benefit of Section 10-B of the Act and this fact needed to be gone into. Section 10-B of the Act envisaged that if the surplus area is not utilised and in the meantime, the landowner has died, the order declaring the land as surplus could not be implemented because the surplus land is to be determined qua the heirs of the deceased landowner. It is not disputed that the land allegedly declared surplus has not been utilised. The heirs of the landlord could not be deprived of the benefit of Section 10-B of the Act after the endorsement of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (in short the Ceiling Act) in view of Section 8 of this Act. The land which had been declared surplus and which had not been utilised, the surplus area is to be determined qua the heirs of the deceased-landowners. It is not the case of the State that the land vests with the State or that it has been utilised for a certain period. Apart from this, it is unfortunate that the case was reopened without any justifiable ground. The Collector Agrarian vide his order dated 9th January, 1970, had found that the landowner was a small landowner. This order was not assailed by the State. The order has attained finality. Apart from this, it is unfortunate that the case was reopened without any justifiable ground. The Collector Agrarian vide his order dated 9th January, 1970, had found that the landowner was a small landowner. This order was not assailed by the State. The order has attained finality. There was no basis for initiation of suomotu proceedings for setting aside the order. The action of the Commissioner and thereafter of the Financial Commissioner cannot be sustained. The order passed by the Collector Agrarian on remand by the Financial Commissioner cannot be sustained on this ground also. 2. We find absolutely no reason to dis-agree with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. Admittedly, Hotu Ram had died before the land could be utilised and as such, the succession had re-opened which required a re-determination of the area owned by the landowner. No penalty could, therefore, be foisted on the landowners.