Abhey Ram and Others vs The State of Haryana and Others

J.V. Gupta, J.—The Special Collector, Punjab, vide his order dated 14th of January, 1963, declared an area of 72 standard acres and 14-

3/4 units as sarplus in the hands of Abhey Ram son of Gokal, resident of Village Bhambhewa, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind. Later on, the Naib

Tehsildar Agrarian, Narwana, issued a notice dated 25th of March, 1971 u/s 32-MM of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955,

(hereinafter referred to as the Act) for separation of surplus area. This necessitated the filing of the present writ petition.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the said Abhey Ram died and his heirs and Jegal representatives were impleaded as Petitioners to this

writ petition. The main ground taken in paragraph 7 of the writ petition is that no proper notice was issued to Abhey Ram by the Special Collector

for appearance on 14th of January, 1963 on which date the order, Annexure ''B'', declaring the surplus area, was passed against him. A copy of

the report of the process-server made on 11th of January, 1963, is Annexure ''D'' to the writ petition. It is stated therein:

It is submitted that Shri Abhey Ram son of Gokal has gone to Bhiwani for getting his eyes operated. The thumb-impression of Manji Chokidar

witness has been obtained at the spot. Hence the report is submitted.

For the first time, the Petitioner Abhey Ram came to know of this order of the Special Collector on receipt of the notice dated 25th of March,

1971, as he had no notice earlier to the order dated 14th of January, 1963 passed against him. In the return filed on behalf of Collector Agrarian

Reforms, Jind, it has been stated, in reply to paragraph 7 of the writ petition, that the report of the process-server dated 11th of January, 1963,

Annexure ''D'', is admitted and the rest of the paragraph was denied. It was further stated that a draft statement was served on the Petitioner as

early as 14th of May, 1962 to which he filed objections on 4th of June, 1962. Further more, the Petitioner also made representations to the Naib

Tehsildar Agrarian and the Collector, Jind, respectively against the declaration of surplus area. There is no document in support of this assertion

that the Petitioner filed any representation to the authorities against the declaration of surplus area and he knew the order earlier than 1971 when

the notice u/s 32-MM of the Act was issued to Abhey Ram.

Sub-section (2) of Section 32-D of the Act provides:

The draft statement shall include the advice of the Pepsu Land Commission appointed u/s 32-P regarding the exemption from ceiling if claimed by

the landowner and be published in the office of the Collector and a copy thereof shall be served upon the person or persons concerned in the form

and manger prescribed. Any objection received within thirty days of the service shall be duly considered by the Collector and after affording the

objector an opportunity of being heard, order shall be passed on the objection.

From the perusal of the above quoted provision, it is quite clear that the landowner shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard before a final

order is passed on the objections filed by him earlier in the present case, from the report of the process-server. Annexure ''D'', it is apparent that

Abhey Ram son of Gokal was reported to have gone to Bhiwani for getting his eyes operated. The process-server did not take any other steps to

serve Abhey Ram, the landowner. Under these circumstances, this service of Abhey Ram, vide Annexure ''D'', cannot be said to be a proper

notice as to afford him an opportunity of being heard as contemplated in Sub-section (2) of Section 32-D of the Act. The order will be deemed to

have been passed without affording him any opportunity of being heard. Consequently, this writ petition succeeds and the order of the Special

Collector dated 14th of January, 1963 (Annexure ''B'') as well as the notice dated 25th of March, 1971 (Annexure ''A'') u/s 32-MM of the Act,

are quashed.

The parties through their counsel have been directed to appear before the Collector Agrarian Reforms, Jind, on 23rd September; 1981. It has

been made clear to the counsel for the Petitioners, who are now the legal heirs of Abhey Ram deceased Petitioner that no fresh notice will be

issued to them by the Collector concerned. The Collector will now proceed with the case afresh and determine the surplus area in accordance with

law. However, there will be no order as to costs since the Petitioners remained in possession of the land during the pendency of the writ petition.