Ram Ghander vs The State of Haryana and others

J.V. Gupta, J.—The petitioner''s land was declared surplus by the Collector, Agrarian, Sonepat, on November 23, 1959. The area declared surplus was 18 standard acres two units. More than 18 years after, on December 15, 1977, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, contending that it was within limitation because Form-F had not been served on him and that the period of limitation for the purpose of filing the appeal counted only from the date of service of Form-F. However, the Commissioner, vide order dated February 16, 1978, vide copy, Annexure P. 3, rejected the petitioner''s appeal as barred by time. In the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the said order before the Financial Commissioner, the order of the Commissioner was affirmed as the view taken was that the petitioner was present at the time when the order declaring the surplus area was passed on November 23, 1959, and that he was told about the land which was declared surplus. Thus, according to the learned Financial Commissioner, even if Form-F was not served on the petitioner, it was of no consequence. Dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order of the Financial Commissioner dated September 7, 1979, copy Annexure P. 4.

At the time of the motion hearing, records of the case were sent for as it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings recorded by the Financial Commissioner that there is an endorsement on the office Form-F indicating that the same was sent to the petitioner, was not borne from the record. From the order dated December 10, 1979, of this Court, it is quite evident that the records were seen. It was observed therein that prima facie it appears that Form-F was not served. Ultimately, the petition was admitted after notice of motion and the dispossession of the petitioner was stayed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Form-F was never served on the petitioner. His appeal filed before the Commissioner on December 15, 1977, was within time. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Vir Singh v. State of Punjab 1970 P.L.J. 70 and Hazura Singh v. The State of Haryana 1980 P.L.J. 413. He also pointed out that on November 15, 1977, under the Haryana Land Ceiling Act, the petitioner was given the benefit of 13 standard acres seven units of the land out of the land declared surplus.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner did not raise any objection relating to Form F when his land measuring 13 acres and seven units was released from the surplus pool by the order of the Collector, Agrarian, Sonepat. In any case, argued the learned counsel, as per the record, Form-F was duly served on the petitioner and, therefore his appeal was rightly dismissed as barred by time.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties. I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner.

There is nothing on the record to show that Form-F was duly served on the petitioner as per the rules framed under the above-said Act. It was held by this Court in Vir Singh''s case (supra), that the provisions regarding filing of appeal in sub-rule (8) appear to have been purposely enacted in sequence after sub-rules 6 and 7 so that the decision appealed from may be deemed to have been communicated to him after the service of Form ''F''. If it had been otherwise then in sub-rule (8) the language used would have been ''from the date of the order'' and not ''form the date of the communication of the decision.'' It was again reiterated in Hazura Singh''s case (supra), wherein it was observed,-

However, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the statement in Form ''F'' had to be conveyed to the petitioner or served on him in accordance with section 90 of the Punjab Tenancy Act (hereinafter called the Act), read with rule 6(7) of the Rules. A perusal of section 90 of the Act leaves no manner of doubt that the notice or the statement in Form ''F'' was required to be affixed on the outer door of the residential house of the party concerned in case the party refused to accept the same. In the present case, as the petitioner, according to the report of the process server, refused to accept the statement in Form ''F'' it was mandatory for the authorities concerned to see that the same was affixed on the outer door of the house of the petitioner.

In view of the said pronouncements, as regards the present case, Form ''F'' was never served on the petitioner as required under the rules and hence his appeal could not be dismissed as barred by time.

Consequently, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the Commissioner, copy, Annexure P. 3 dated February 16, 1978 and that of the Financial Commissioner, copy, Annexure P. 4, dated September 7, 1979, are hereby quashed. The parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, on August 1, 1988. On appearance, he will decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.