Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1318 (PNJ)

Kalawanti widow of Gopal Dass v. State of Haryana

2011-06-02

K.KANNAN

body2011
JUDGMENT K. KANNAN, J. 1. The issue involved in this petition is the manner of determination of surplus area under the Hayana Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act). The order under challenge is the order passed in revision before the Financial Commissioner, rejecting the revision and directing the matter to be remitted to the prescribed Authority to implement the earlier direction given by the Financial Commissioner and affording to the legal heirs of the landowner, Gopal Dass (since deceased) the opportunity of hearing. The principal contention was that in the manner of reckoning the standard acres, it was essential to determine the quality of land for which evidence was deemed necessary. The petitioners had certain fundamental objections relating to the initiation of proceedings and even though the final determination had not occurred through the impugned order, they still challenged the order through this writ petition, for the observation made by various authorities in the hierarchy before it culminated the order of the Financial Commissioner. 2. The proceedings were initiated under the Act and a determination of 62 Kanals and 19 Marlas of 'C' Category land as surplus was made by the prescribed Authority through his order dated 15.09.1980. Appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Collector on 16.6.1981 and a revision to the Commissioner also met with the same fate by the decision dated 26.6.1982. A further revision petition under Section 18(6) of the Act was partly allowed by the Financial Commissioner and the matter was remitted to the prescribed Authority through his order dated 14.10.1985 for re-examining the quality of the holding and for reassessing the value thereof. 3. After the order was passed remitting the matter to the prescribed Authority, the landowner Gopal Dass died when the case was still under consideration before the prescribed Authority. But the proceedings continued without impleading the legal representative when he reiterated the same order passed in the year 1980 and without reassessing the value of the holding, he also directed that the proceedings shall be initiated for recovery of the benefit derived by the landowner during the earlier 9 years. This order was challenged in appeal to the Collector by the legal representatives when the present petitioners were made themselves parties to the proceedings, the Collector remanded the matter back to the prescribed Authority for the purpose of reassessing the value of the holding. This order was challenged in appeal to the Collector by the legal representatives when the present petitioners were made themselves parties to the proceedings, the Collector remanded the matter back to the prescribed Authority for the purpose of reassessing the value of the holding. This order itself was challenged by the petitioners before the Commissioner and the Commissioner also reiterated that the petitioners could reappear before the prescribed Authority for “satisfying the impugned order.” The Financial Commissioner also maintained the remand order of the Collector made on 07.02.1989 in a petition filed under Section 18(6) and that is the order in challenge before this Court. 4. The principal contentions raised in the writ petition are that the principal legal import of the case had not been properly appreciated. The proceedings were being initiated against Gopal Dass even after his death without giving notice to the petitioners that they could participate in the enquiry and adduce evidence. The prescribed Authority had not even permitted to be legal representatives of the deceased Gopal Dass. The petitioners were interested in contending that the order passed on 05.09.1988 without impleading the legal representatives was void having been passed against dead person. While passing the order, the Collector had made reference to some decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court under the Maharashtra Agricultural Land Act and the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land and they were stated to be wholly irrelevant by the petitioners as they did not contain the provisions parallel to the provisions under Section 8(1) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972. The direction for restoration of the petition after 9 years from the period when the proceedings were pending in various tiers of quasi-judicial forums is wholly incompetent and the petitioners complained of violation of principles of natural justice for being not afforded opportunity in the manner contemplated by the Commissioner at the time when he passed the order on 14.10.1985. 5. It could be noticed that none of the contentions really went to the root of the problem and the petitioners were only interested in contending that they have not been granted any opportunity of being brought on record and the first order after the remand had been passed against the dead person. 5. It could be noticed that none of the contentions really went to the root of the problem and the petitioners were only interested in contending that they have not been granted any opportunity of being brought on record and the first order after the remand had been passed against the dead person. The State supports the order by saying that death of the landowner itself has no bearing since the holding has to be determined on the date of the coming into force of the Act with respect to the holding of a person, who was alive by that time. It is contended that in terms of Section 9(4) (c) of the Act, the widow of the declarant should have issued the declaration, she being aware of the death of her husband. It was also contended on behalf of the State that the landowner was given sufficient opportunities to adduce evidence regarding the value of the land the 1st petitioner being aware of the proceedings could have herself substituted as declarant in the place of the deceased and she deliberately avoided participating in the proceedings after death of Gopal Dass only to contend later that the proceedings were pursued without impleading the legal representatives. The petitioners were really interested in taking undue advantage of the long pendency of writ petition. 6. During the pendency of the proceedings, certain events have taken place, which have been brought through miscellaneous objections. In C.M. No.20155 of 1997, the applicant No.1 Munni Ram son of late Sh. Puran Chand and applicant No.2, widow of Puran Chand Sarbati Devi contended that Puran Chand was a gair marushi tenant and was allowed 40 Kanals and 4 Marlas out of the disputed land when the property was declared as surplus through the 1st order dated 15.09.1980. The tenant had deposited the full consideration of Rs.9,246.30 and was also given physical possession of the part of the land measuring 20 Kanals 4 Marlas and symbolic possession was taken with reference to the remaining land. The applicants had contended that the petitioners knew about the same but they have filed writ petitions without impleading applicants No.1 and 2 as party and concealing from the Court actual facts for property being handed over to them. The applicants had contended that the petitioners knew about the same but they have filed writ petitions without impleading applicants No.1 and 2 as party and concealing from the Court actual facts for property being handed over to them. The contention was that Puran Chand died on 25.10.1996 and his legal representatives, the applicants would be grossly prejudiced if any decision relating to the property is taken in their absence. The petitioners would contend in reply to this application that the allocation of 40 Kanals and 2 Marlas (not 4 Marlas as stated in the application) was inconsequential, since the allocation itself was made during the pendency of proceedings and therefore, would be subject to the final decision and a logical end will be that the proceedings initiated against the landowner would govern the rights of the subsequent allottee as well. I do not think there is any need for joining the applicants as parties to the proceedings since they were all subsequent allottees and if it ultimately turns out that the petitioners' holding was in excess of the ceiling area, the authorities will duly consider the fact of the subsequent events and pass appropriate orders in the line of the order that is passed regarding the determination of area. 7. I am of the view that the writ petition is grossly an abusive process. The rights had not been determined and the Financial Commissioner had only directed the prescribed Authority to redetermine the surplus qua the status of land of Gopal Dass on 24.01.1971 and he had also directed that the opportunity will be given to the legal representatives and to determine the total land holding after giving a finding qua the quality of land. The order of remand passed by the Financial Commissioner made in revision dated 06.02.1990 was, therefore, perfectly justified and I find no scope for interference. 8. The petitioners have been able to drag proceedings for several years without actual determination of surplus in accordance with law. The prescribed Authority shall dispose of the matter and redetermine the surplus, if any, after affording opportunity to the petitioners to join the proceedings and gather evidence qua quality of land and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within four a period of four weeks after receipt of copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is disposed of as above.