Om Parkash vs State of Haryana

G.R. Majithia and S.K. Jain, JJ.—The petitioner has challenged the order dated April 30, 1993 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby the revision petition filed by him was dismissed and the orders of the Prescribed Authority, Collector, Sirsa and the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar were upheld, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

2 Som Parkash (since deceased) submitted Declaration Form u/s 9 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short, the Act). The Prescribed Authority, Sirsa, vide order dated June 19, 1982, accepted the declaration and found that the landowner did not hold land in excess of the prescribed limit. The State did not challenge the order of the Prescribed Authority. One Comrade Mahipat, a Social Worker, filed a complaint to the Collector, Sirsa stating that the landowner had wrongly been given the benefit of one Unit of area. The Collector set aside the order of the prescribed authority vide his order dated September 4, 1984 and remitted the case back to the Prescribed Authority for a fresh decision. The Prescribed Authority found that the landowner had sold 151 Kanals and 8 Marlas of land on April 10, 1970, for Rs. 28,000/- and transferred its possession to the vendees on the same day. The vendees were not the relations of the landowner. However, he found that this land could not be excluded from the holdings of the landowner for computing his total land holdings. He directed the landowner to submit a list of field numbers, which he wanted to be declared as surplus. The landowner unsuccessfully challenged the order of the Prescribed Authority in appeal before the Collector and in revision petition before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar. The second revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana was registered as R.O.R. No. 93 of 1989-90. The Financial Commissioner accepted the revision petition vide his order dated August 21,1990 observing thus:-

"A point has been made by the State that since now the matter is before Financial Commissioner, he can exercise his suo moto powers to order a revision of the order of the Prescribed Authority of 19.6.1982.1 think, this is incorrect. No case has been made out by the State. No revision has been brought by the State. The sale was made on 10.4.72 i.e. before the commencement of Haryana Ceiling on Land holdings Act and as per Jaswant Kaur''s case 1977 P.L.J 230 the sale, if bona fide, will have to exempt. The sale was for consideration and not to the relations. No argument has been advanced on behalf of State that it was not bona fide."

Jit Singh and Kaur Singh challenged the order of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana in this Court through Civil Writ Petition No. 5261 of 1991 and the same was disposed of by a Division Bench, of this Court on July 29,1991, observing thus:-

"The primary argument advanced before us is that the petitioner was not heard and that he was a necessary party before the Financial Commissioner. The counsel for respondent No. 5 has submitted before us that the petitioner may be ordered to be heard by the Financial by the Financial Commissioner. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and direct the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) on 13.8.1991."

After remand, Shri G.V. Gupta, I.A.S., Financial Commissioner, Haryana, vide his order dated April 30, 1993, dismissed the revision petition and and upheld the orders of the Prescribed Authority, the Collector and the Commissioner. He did not draw his attention to his earlier order referred supra. He had held the order of the prescribed authority dated June 19, 1982 was not challenged by the State either in appeal or in revision, and the same had attained finality. He had also held that the sale was made by the landowner in respect of 151 Kanals and 8 Marlas on April 10,1972, before the commencement of the Act and as such the sale was to be treated as bona fide and was exempt from the purview of the Act.

The Financial Commissioner rejected the revision petition filed by the landowner and was principally swayed away by the fact that the sale was not bona fide and the landowner had failed to prove any pressing necessity to justify the sale.

The approach of the Financial Commissioner is not correct. The Prescribed Authority had accepted the declaration submitted by the landowner and found that he was not possessed of any surplus land. The order of the Prescribed Authority was not challenged by the State either in appeal or in revision. The same had attained finality. The Collector was not justified in setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority on the basis of a complaint filed by a social worker. Section 18 of the Act says that any person aggrieved by an order of the Prescribed Authority can challenge the same in appeal before the Collector within fifteen days of the order of the Prescribed Authority. A person will be deemed to be aggrieved against the order if he is affected by it. The order must affect his civil rights and cause prejudice to him. A complainant cannot be said to be a person aggrieved against the order or the Prescribed Authority; The Financial Commissioner could treat the complaint as an information and suo moto re-open the order of the Prescribed Authority, but the appropriate authority (i.e. the Collector) could not treat the complaint as an appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority. The Collector exceeded its jurisdiction when it treated the complaint as an appeal and set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority. The Financial Commissioner in his order dated August 21,1990 had correctly come to the conclusion that the order of the Prescribed Authority dated June 19, 1982 had attained finality as it was not challenged by the State. The State was the only aggrieved party. It had the right to challenge the order of the Prescribed Authority. The State having accepted order of the Prescribed ''Authority dated June 19, 1982, it was not open to a social worker to assail the quasi-judicial order by filing a complaint before the appellate authority. Concededly, the authorities had not initiated proceedings against the landowner either under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act or under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. On the commencement of the Act, the landowner filed a declaration u/s 9 of the Act giving details of the lands held by him and stated that his holdings were within the prescribed limit. The transfer of 151 Kanals and 8 Marlas of land was effected by him before the commencement of the Act and as such it was a bona fide transaction. It was not made by a big landowner. It was made by a landowner who claimed that he was a small landowner and his total holdings were within the prescribed limit. There was no material before the Prescribed Authority to come to contrary conclusion.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds, the order of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana date 4 April 30, 1993 is quashed and the orders on the Commissioner the Collector and the Prescribed Authority dated January 12, 1990, October 17, 1989 and January 5, 1989 are also quashed. The order of the Prescribed Authority dated June 19, 1982 and of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 21,1990 are upheld.