Hari Singh vs State of Haryana and Others

G.R. Majithia, J.—The petitioner landlord has challenged the order of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated November 23, 1979 in (his Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

The facts :

The petitioner owned 70.26 ordinary acres as on April 15, 1953. During consolidation, he got a cut to his total holdings to the extent of 2 94 ordinary acres. After allowing him permissible area to the extent of 60 acres, 7.32 ordinary acres was declared as surplus with the land owner. The land owner did not file any declaration or made any reservation under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (for short, the Act) The Collector, Agrarian after allbwing him permissible area to the extent of 60 ordinary acres, declared the remaining Land as surplus with him, but the old tenants were in possession of the surplus area They were not to be disturbed and no tenant could be settled on the surplus land. The Collector upholding the rights of the old tenants observed that the area cannot be utilised for allotment to re-settle the tenants. The order of the Collector, Agrarian, dated October 20, 1959 attained finality since it was not challenged by the land owner. However, the respondent No. 4, now represented by his legal representatives, filed an appeal against the order of the Collector, Agrarian, dated October 20, 1959 on October 29, 1971. His principal grouse was that he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing by the Collector Agrarian before deciding surplus area case of the landlord. The Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala relying upon Vir Singh v. State of Punjab (1970) 72 P. L. R. 304, up-set the order of the Collector, Agrarian, dated October 20, 1939 and remitted the case to the Collector, Agrarian for fresh decision. The land owner aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, unsuccessfully challenged the same before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana.

Mr. Ajay Mittal, Advocate, submits that the interest of the old tenants was protected by the Collector Agrarian while determining the surplus area of the land owner. In his order, he has specifically observed that the old tenants were rot to be disturbed from the land in their possession. According to him, the tenants could not be deemed to be aggrieved by the order of the Collector, Agrarian. A perusal of the order of the Collector Agrarian does not indicate any prejudice to the respondent tenants. it is unfortunate that the Revenue Officers up set the just order of the Collector Agrarian without appreciating that the rights of the old tenants have been fully protected in the order itself Till a prejudice is shown, this order should not have been lightly interfered with. Apart from this, the learned counsel submits that the respondent tenants had the knowledge of the order of the Collector, Agrarian in 1967 and May, 1971. In para No. 8 (v) of the writ petition, it is stated thus:

"That in the instant case, Respondent No. 4 filed an appeal on 29-10-1971 and undoubtedly he had effective knowledge of the order under appeal, much earlier i. e. in 1967 and again in May, 1971. The period of limitation being 60 days, there was no justification in delaying the appeal till October, 1971."

and in the corresponding para of the reply, it is stated as under:

"The contents mentioned in this sub para are wrong and hence denied."

The averments of this paragraph were not controverted. The reply has to be specific and not evasive. Every plea in the petition has to be specifically dealt with. In the absence of any specific denial to the plea in the writ petition, an inference can be drawn that the plea was admitted as correct by the respondents. Obviously, the tenant had the knowledge of the order of the Collector, Agrarian, in 1967. He did not challenge the same within the prescribed period and he was not entitled to challenge the order after the expiry of more than 11 years. The appeal was not maintainable till he had shown good cause for not challenging the same within the period of limitation. He did not show any good cause and the Commissioner was in error in allowing the appeal wholly on hypothetical grounds. The orders of the Commissioner and the Firancial Commissioner cannot be sustained.

For the reasons recorded above, the orders of the Commissioner, dated January 12, 1972 and the Financial Commissioner, dated March 28, 1972 are quashed and the order of the Collector, Agrarian, dated October 20, 1959 is restored.

I record my appreciation for Mr. Ajay Mittal, Advocate, for appearing on behalf of Mr. Ram Rang, Advocate, at my asking.