Bharat Starch and Chemicals Ltd. vs State of Haryana

V.K. Bali, J. (Oral)

Bharat Starch and Chemicals Limited, a company incorporated under Companies Act through the present petition filed by it under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks setting aside of order passed by the Collector Agrarian dated 5.10.1962, Annexure P1 as also order passed by the Commissioner dated 25.6.1963, Annexure P5, vide which the Collector Agrarian declared that the petitioner was entitled to retain 30 Standard Acres as its permissible area and the rest of the land, measuring 176 Standard Acres 1113/4 units was declared surplus. It is in this order of the Collector Agrarian which was agitated by way of appeal before the Commissioner and as referred to above, the same was dismissed on 25.6.1963.

The only argument that has been raised at the time of hearing is that statement in Form `F'' was not prepared and obviously a copy of the same was not given to the landowner. It is argued that subrule (7) of Rule 6 of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956, provided that after the order was passed by the Collector, a statement in Form `F'' had to be forwarded immediately to the landowner compliance whereof is mandatory and inasmuch as statement in `From `F'' was not served on the landowner, the order passed by the Collector and the Commissioner would be wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. For his aforestated stand, the learned Counsel relies upon the judgment delivered by me in Tek Ram v. State of Haryana and others, HAP 1992 P&H 688 : 1993(1) RRR 499 (P&H).

The cause of the petitioner has been opposed and even though it has not been disputed that form `F'' was not served on the petitioner landowner, it is pleaded and so argued by Mr. Jagdev Sharma, the learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana that the petitioner had earlier filed Civil Writ Petition Nos. 475, 485, 478 and 513 of 1977 in this Court challenging the provisions of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and its effect against the declaration of their surplus area and the same were dismissed on 17.3.1977. The Special Leave Petitions were filed in the Supreme Court which were dismissed on 9.5.1980. That being so, it is pleaded that the petitioner is precluded from filing this petition and that, too, at such belated stage when the Collector Agrarian had passed the order way back in the year 1962 and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 25.6.1963. On merits of the case, the learned Additional Advocate General, relies upon judgment of this court in Mulkh Raj v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 1985 RRR 479 (P&H) : 1986 PLJ 316.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case I am of the view that the points raised by Mr. Harbhagwan Singh have merits and, therefore, this petition has to be allowed. A reading of subrules (6) (7) and (8) of Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956, would make it clear that limitation is to start from the date of communication of the decision and the communication has to be made by service of Form `F'' on the land owner or the tenant as the case may be. It is the order passed under subrule (6) together with the statement in Form `F'' which shall constitute the actual decision of the Collector. While dealing with the case of Tek Ram (supra), I have also relied upon a judgment of this Court in Vir Singh v. The State of Punjab and others, 1970 PLJ page 70. The relevant observations made in the said judgment are as follows :

"The combined reading of subrule (6), (7) and (8) of Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956, clearly indicates that the limitation is to start from the date of the communication of the decision and how that communication is made, is by service of Form `F'' on the landowner. As prescribed under subrule (6), the area is declared surplus after going into the objections which may be preferred by the landowner or the tenant and thereafter under subrule (7) an imperative duty is cast on the Collector or the Special Collector to prepare a statement in Form `F'' and forward it immediately for service on the landowner or the tenant. The purpose of serving this form on the landowner or the tenant is to let him know the actual decision of the Collector giving a detailed statement as to what area has been declared surplus and which area has been left as his (landowner''s or tenant''s) permissible area. The order passed under subrule (6) together with the statement in Form `F'' constitute the actual decision of the Collector affecting a landowner or a tenant. It is after the service of Form `F'' that the person concerned knows his actual position and the decision made against him. It would not make the slightest difference if a person concerned is present when the order is passed under subrule (6). His right to appeal accrues only when Form `F'' is served on him. The limitation for an appeal under subrule (8) is to start not from the date on which the order is passed by the Collector but from the date on which Form `F'' is served on the landowner or the tenant, as the case may be."

The view expressed in Vir Singh''s case (supra) was thereafter followed in a number of judgments by the Court. That being the situation, in so far as the objection with regard to delay is concerned, the same has to be repelled. It is true that the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petitions, reference of which has been given in the written statement but the same were admittedly to challenge the vires of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. No writ challenging the order passed by the Collector and Commissioner was earlier filed and simply because the petitioner challenged the vires of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, it would not debar him for agitating the case on merits so as to plead and prove that the order passed even in pursuance of provision of Punjab Security on Land Tenures Act is bad for one reason or the other. An imperative duty is cast on the Collector to prepare a statement in Form `F'' and forward the same immediately for service on the landowner or the tenant. The purpose of serving this form on the landowner or the tenant is to let him know the actual decision of the Collector giving a detailed statement as to what areas has been declared surplus and which area has been left as his (landowner''s or tenant''s) permissible area. The order passed under subrule (6) together with the statement in Form `F'' constitute the actual decision of the Collector affecting a landowner or a tenant. This mandatory procedure prescribed in the Rules was not followed, thus, vitiating the orders passed by the Collector. Case of Mulkh Raj v. Financial Commissioner Haryana and others (supra) relied upon by the Additional Advocate General is with regard to compliance of Rule 5 of the Punjab Security on Land Tenures Act, 1956. All that was held therein was that it was not correct that reservation under Section 5(1) was complete only when Patwari in compliance with Rule 5 made a report verifying contents of reservation form and once the landlord had submitted a proper reservation form under Rule 5, the mere fact that Revenue Authorities did not do their duties could not possibly adversely affect right of landowner. This judgment is, thus, not relevant as it does not deal with the controversy in hand.

As the order of the Collector Agrarian is not complete as it is without preparing statement in Form `F'' and sending it to the landowner, it is directed that the Collector Agrarian would proceed with the case from the date when the order dated 5.10.1962 was passed. As the order of the Collector Agrarian has not been set aside, as mentioned earlier, the matter would be proceeded further and Form `F'' shall be prepared and served on the landowner in accordance with law. The order passed by the Commissioner is, however, set aside. The writ petition is allowed in the manner indicated above but there shall be no order as to costs.