Savitri and Bhagwanti vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J.

Smt. Savitri and Smt. Bhagwanti have filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of writ of certiorari for the quashment of the orders (Annexures P1 and P2) passed by respondents No. 2 and 3, declaring the area belonging to the petitioners as surplus qua respondent No. 5, under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short ''the 1972 Act''), and allotting the same to respondents No. 6 to 10, namely, Kaku, Piara, Munshi, Khushal and Nihal.

The case set up by the petitioners is that father of the petitioners and husband of respondent No. 5, i.e., Dayal, owned share in Khewat No. 8, Khatauni Nos. 12 to 21, measuring 1494 Kanals 2 Marlas situated in village Banni, Tehsil and District Sirsa. According to the petitioners, Shri Dayal died on 23.6.1956, leaving behind the petitioners and respondent No. 5 as his heirs in equal shares. The surplus land in the hands of Shri Dayal under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short ''1953 Act'') had neither been declared nor utilised before he died and he was in possession of the entire holding. By virtue of the exception provided under Section 10A(b) of the 1953 Act in favour of the heirs acquiring by inheritance, each of the three heirs, i.e., the petitioners and respondent No. 5, succeeded to 249 Kanals each, and they became small landowners within the meaning of the 1953 Act and no part of the land in their hands became surplus. On the death of Shri Dayal, which took place soon after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the revenue staff while verifying the annual record (Charsala Jamabandi) on 20.10.1956 mutated the entire land left by Shri Dayal in the name of respondent No. 5 alone, following the Customary law of Succession, in ignorance of or contrary to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. The mutation was attested and sanctioned in favour of Smt. Parmeshwari Devi (respondent No. 5) without notice to the petitioners. In spite of the wrong and illegal mutation, the petitioners and their mother Smt. Parmeshwari Devi remained in possession as owners in equal shares. Respondent No. 5 did not inherit the entire share of her husband and, therefore, she was not a big landowner. She did not furnish any declaration to the Collector as required under Section 19B of the 1953 Act. The grouse of the petitioners is that the mistake of wrong entry was discovered by them in the year 1972 and in order to get the wrong mutation entry undone, the petitioner Smt. Bhagwanti filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she is the owner of the property to the extent of onethird share left by her father and her suit was decreed on 14.4.1972 and mutation No. 3118 was attested and on the basis of that decree mutation No. 3276 was sanctioned on 14.3.1976. Respondent No. 5 misled by the entries in the revenue record, filed declaration in Form I under Section 9 of the 1972 Act, indicating the change of ownership entries vide mutations No. 3118 and 3276, as transfers after 24.1.1971. Respondent No. 3, the Prescribed Authority under the Ceiling Law, without issuing proper notice to respondent No. 4 and without issuing any notice for hearing to the petitioners, passed orders dated 12.10.1978 (Annexure P1) and ignored mutations No. 3118 and 3276 as not bona fide transfers and declared 740 Kanals 4 Marlas ''C'' Category land as surplus with Smt. Parmeshwari (respondent No. 5). Respondent No. 5 then filed an appeal before the Collector and the same was dismissed as barred by time. The learned Collector did not take notice of the fact that the petitioners are the owners to the extent of onethird share each in the estate of Shri Dayal. The order passed by the Collector is Annexure P2. Now the challenge has been given to the orders (Annexures P1 and P2) on the ground that the petitioners are the legal heirs of Shri Dayal, who allegedly died on 23.6.1956 after the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, which came into force on 17.6.1956 and, therefore, the Prescribed Authority wrongly proceeded on the assumption that Shri Dayal died prior to the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act and wrongly mutated the entire land in the name of respondent No. 5 and declared it surplus vide orders (Annexures P1 and P2). It is also the grouse of the petitioners that they were not associated with the enquiries at any stage made by the authorities, and, as such, the impugned orders (Annexures P1 and P2) are illegal and are liable to be set aside in the present writ petition.

Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. At the first instance the written statement was filed by the official respondents, who took the objections that the writ petition was not maintainable as it suffered from the vice of laches and delay. Moreover, the petitioners had not availed the remedies provided under Section 18 of the 1972 Act before invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On merits it was submitted that the shares which were owned by Shri Dayal were verified from the documents. The date of death of Shri Dayal was very much in dispute. His death took place before the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, and according to the law prevailing at the time of the death of Shri Dayal, Smt. Parmeshwari Devi was entitled to succeed the entire estate of her husband. In spite of the fact that Smt. Parmeshwari Devi became the owner of the land measuring 742 Kanals, she did not file declaration form under the 1953 Act. She could retain only 480 Kanals as her permissible area. She cleverly avoided the provisions of the 1953 Act, i.e., the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, without any penalty. It was specifically pleaded by the official respondents that the death of Shri Dayal took place before the Hindu Succession Act came into force and the mutation was entered and sanctioned in favour of his widow Smt. Parmeshwari Devi (respondent No. 5) in accordance with law. It has been denied that the mutation was entered and sanctioned at the back of the petitioners. It was also submitted that the petitioners never remained in possession of the land and only respondent No. 5 Smt. Parmeshwari Devi remained in possession thereof after the death of her husband. The alleged civil Court decrees dated 14.4.1972 and 14.12.1973 were collusive and were obtained by the petitioners in connivance with their mother Smt. Parmeshwari Devi in order to defeat the provisions of the Ceiling Act. The alleged collusive decrees have been rightly ignored as per provisions of Section 12(4) of the said Act. The order of the Prescribed Authority dated 12.10.1978 declaring 748 Kanals 4 Marlas ''C'' Category land as surplus in the hands of respondent No. 5, was perfectly legal, valid and in accordance with law. The order was passed after affording full opportunity of hearing to the declarant, who also filed an appeal before the Collector, which was dismissed on 26.10.1981 after hearing the parties. The surplus area case of Smt. Parmeshwari Devi was correctly prepared. The surplus area vested in the State. The petitioners or respondent No. 5 had no concern with the said land after 12.10.1978 and the concerned authority could deliver the possession of the surplus area to the allottees according to law. It may be mentioned here that respondents No. 6 to 10 are the allottees. The petitioners are the transferees by way of collusive decrees passed after the appointed date having the effect of minimising the surplus area. As such, these decrees were rightly ignored under Section 12(4) of the 1972 Act by the Prescribed Authority. With the above main defence, respondent No. 3 prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

Earlier this writ petition came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 2.2.1989, who passed the following order :

"Shri Dayal was the owner of the disputed land. He died on June 23, 1956, leaving behind two daughters namely Savitri and Bhagwanti, and a widow Smt. Parmeshwari. On the death of Dayal, mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of Smt. Parmeshwari. Smt. Savitri and Bhagwanti filed suits for declaration that they were the legal heirs of their father and they were entitled to succeed to the estate. Their suits were decreed and the judgments rendered by the Civil Court were given effect to in the recordofrights. The land is still in possession of the heirs of the deceased.

On the death of Shri Dayal fresh assessment of surplus area was to be made. It is stated that it has not been done. These heirs had vested rights. The land has not been utilised and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Financial Commissioner, Haryana State and others v. Smt. Kala Devi and another, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 309, the process of utilization contemplated by Section 10A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, is complete in respect of any surplus area only when possession thereof has been taken by the allottee or the allottees and the other formalities have been completed. A completed title does not pass to the allottee on a mere order of allotment. Similar view was taken by this Court in Darbara Singh and others v. Haryana State and others, CWP No. 1416 of 1983, decided on January 3, 1989 : 1989 PLJ 85. In view of the above observations, the orders passed by the authorities under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, are quashed. If the legal heirs are in possession of excess area, the authorities will proceed in accordance with law. The parties will bear their own costs."

The above order would show that the learned Single Judge vide order dated 2.2.1989 quashed the impugned orders (Annexures P1 and P2) on the premises that Shri Dayal died on 23.6.1956, i.e., after the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act and the entire approach of the authorities in examining the surplus area case of Shri Dayal was illegal because Smt. Savitri and Smt. Bhagwanti had the vested rights and the land had not been utilised. The private respondents, i.e., Kaku and others, filed L.P.A. against the judgment dated 2.2.1989 passed by the learned Single Judge and vide detailed judgment dated 17.11.1995 the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside, the appeal was allowed and the writ petition was remanded back for adjudication of all the pleas raised by the parties in accordance with the provisions of law; so much so, the appellants of the L.P.A. were permitted to file their replies. It was also directed by the learned Judges while disposing of the L.P.A. that while deciding the writ petition, the Single Judge would take note of the evidence produced by the parties during the pendency of the L.P.A. The operative portion of the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench dated 17.11.1995 is reproduced as follows :

"Under the circumstances, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment impugned in this appeal. The writ petition is remanded back to the learned single Judge for adjudicating all the pleas raised by the parties in accordance with the provisions of law. The appellants herein are permitted to file their replies in the writ petition within a period of two months but subject to payment of Rs. 3000/ as costs to be paid to respondents No. 1 and 2. The replication to the aforesaid reply, if so desired, be filed within a further period of one month. While deciding the writ petition, the learned single Judge may also take into consideration the evidence produced by the parties during the pendency of the appeal. The costs of this appeal to follow the result of the writ petition."

In pursuance of the judgment of the L.P.A. Bench, respondents No. 6 to 9 and the legal representatives of respondent No. 10 filed the written statement and it was pleaded by them that the writ petitioners had not approached the High Court with clean hands as they had knowingly and deliberately concealed the material facts which had a direct bearing on the maintainability of the petition. According to these respondents, the surplus area case of Smt. Parmeshwari Devi (respondent No. 5) was decided by the Prescribed Authority, Sirsa, vide order dated 12.10.1978 (Annexure P1) and 740 Kanals 4 Marlas ''C'' Category land was declared surplus. Respondent No. 5 Smt. Parmeshwari Devi filed an appeal before the Collector, Sirsa, after a period of more than 2 years, but the Collector decided and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 26.10.1981 (Annexure P2). Both the petitioners and respondent No. 5 jointly filed revision No. 48 of 198182 before the Commissioner, Hisar, on 12.11.1981. The learned Commissioner decided and dismissed the revision in limine on 30.7.1982 vide order Annexure R1. Feeling still dissatisfied, respondent No. 5 filed further revision R.O.R. No. 37 of 198283 in the Court of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, impleading the petitioners as respondents No. 2 and 3, respectively. The learned Financial Commissioner decided and dismissed the revision vide wellreasoned order dated 17.12.1984 (Annexure R2). The present writ petitioners admitted the challenge qua the first two orders, i.e., Annexures P1 and P2, and have concealed and not disclosed the subsequent orders Annexures R1 and R2 passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, respectively, and in these circumstances the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the short ground that the petitioners had concealed the material facts, specially when they were duly represented by their lawyer before the Financial Commissioner. The orders (Annexures P1 and P2) were challenged by way of revision before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, by both the petitioners along with their mother and their revision was dismissed on 30.7.1982, against which a further revision was filed by respondent No. 5 before the Financial Commissioner. The orders Annexures P1 and P2 merged with the final order Annexure R2, which has not been challenged in the present writ petition. Even the present petitioners did not approach the Financial Commissioner against the order of the Commissioner as the order Annexure R2 was passed at the instance of Smt. Parmeshwari Devi and Smt. Savitri and Smt. Bhagwanti, the present petitioners, were parties to those proceedings. It was also pleaded by the private respondents that the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed because the land in dispute was declared surplus vide order Annexure P1. On the basis of this declaration, respondents No. 6 to 10 were allotted the land in dispute to the extent of their entitlement by the allotment authorities, Sirsa, vide order dated 16.3.1981. Physical possession was delivered to them on 4.7.1981 vide reports No. 471 and 462 dated 4.7.1981. The replying respondents became the owners of the land and they installed their tubewells and constructed residential houses and they are residing permanently therein. Mutations of ownership were sanctioned in their favour long back and they had already deposited more than 10 instalments of compensation. The process of utilization of the area was complete long back and the petitioners had made wrong statement in the writ petition that they are in possession of the land or that the allotment in favour of the respondents was a mere paper transaction. The petitioners filed a contempt petition in the High Court contending that in spite of the ex parte stay granted by the High Court on 12.11.1981 and confirmed on 20.1.1982, the answering respondents had dispossessed them. When the contest was given to the order that the replying respondents got the possession of the land on 4.7.1981, the case was sent to the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Sirsa, for recording the evidence of the parties and for his report. On receipt of the report, the contempt petition was heard and was dismissed on 24.8.1983 by Justice R. N. Mittal, holding that no contempt was committed by the private respondents and the rule was discharged. The factum of delivery of actual possession of the land in dispute to the answering respondents on 4.7.1981 stood further established vide order dated 24.8.1983 passed in the contempt petition. It was also pleaded by the private respondents that the petitioners had tampered with the official record and they have even played fraud upon the Court by saying that their father expired on 23.6.1956, i.e., after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act. The writ petition was earlier allowed by the learned single Judge on 2.2.1989 on the basis of false and frivolous averments made by the petitioners, when they stated in their writ petition that their father died on 23.6.1956. In the certificate of death (Annexure P4), obtained by the petitioners from the Health Department, the date of death was recorded as 3.6.1956 and the date of registration of the death was recorded as 10.6.1956. The death certificate was tampered with the figure ''2'' was added to figure ''3'' to make it ''23'' and figure ''1''was changed to figure ''3'' to make it ''30'' and the forged certificate showing the date of death of Shri Dayal as 23.6.1956 was produced as Annexure P4 in order to show that Shri Dayal died after 17.6.1956. According to these respondents, in fact, Shri Dayal expired on 3.6.1956, i.e. prior to the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act and the document Annexure P4 is a forged one and the petitioners have done so with a mala fide intention so as to defeat the provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. After the death of Shri Dayal, his land was rightly mutated in the name of his widow Smt. Parmeshwari Devi and the petitioners were not entitled to inherit the estate of their father. The false facts propounded by the petitioners led to the passing of the order by the learned Single Judge, which order was set aside in the L.P.A. It was also pleaded that the original record regarding the entry of the date of death of Shri Dayal was summoned by the Hon''ble Judges during the proceedings of the L.P.A. and the OfficerinCharge of the record was also examined, who categorically deposed that the certificate (P4) showing the date of death of Shri Dayal as 23.6.1956 had not been issued by the office. The respondents also procured the death certificate of Shri Dayal, in which the date of death has been shown as ''3.6.1956'' and the date of registration as ''10.6.1956''. The land in dispute was allotted to the answering respondents vide allotment order dated 16.3.1981 in accordance with the provisions of the Utilisation Scheme. Respondents No. 6 to 8 were allotted 285 Kanals and 2 Marlas of land on 16.3.1981 and were put in possession on 4.7.1981. Respondents No. 9 and 10 were allotted 141 Kanals 5 Marlas of land on 16.3.1981 and they were also put in possession on 4.7.1981. The allotment dated 16.2.1981 has not been challenged before the appellate and revisional authorities.

With the above main defence, the private respondents have tried to justify the orders (Annexures P1 and P2) and have further made reference of orders (Annexures R1 and R2) in order to show that these orders have been concealed by the petitioners and that the orders (Annexures P1 and P2) have merged with the order (Annexures R1 and R2), to which no challenge has been given by the petitioners.

After the remand, this writ petition is being disposed of with the assistance of Shri K. B. Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioner and Sh. L. N. Verma, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the private respondents.

I have already submitted in the earlier portion of the judgment that the order of the learned single Judge proceeded on the assumption that Shri Dayal had died on 23.6.1956. At that time the private respondents did not appear and no assistance was rendered to the learned single Judge. During the course of the L.P.A. the private respondents brought to the notice of the learned Judges of the L.P.A. Bench about the mess of the present petitioners. A reference to the proceedings of the L.P.A. has become necessary. On 9.7.1992 the Hon''ble Judges seized of the L.P.A. proceedings after examining the documents Annexures P4 and R4 (produced by the petitioners and the private respondents, respectively) and they came to the conclusion that it had become necessary to examine the original register containing the death entry. Resultantly, the witness was ordered to be summoned. On 11.8.1992 the Hon''ble Judges further directed Dr. Mahavir Saraff to place on record a photo copy of the relevant entry in the register of June 3, 1956. Finally on 7.11.1994 the Division Bench recorded the statement of Dr. Gurtej Singh, Deputy C.M.O., Sirsa, who made the following statement :

"I have brought the relevant register and perused the same. The entries in the death register are made in Urdu language which I do not know. The entries pertaining to the deaths which took place in the month of June, 1956 are entered in the register on the reverse page of page 19. Two entries are, however, made on page 20 of the said register. I have got prepared a certificate regarding the death of one Dial Singh son of Pat Ram. The certificate dated 13.9.1994 shown to me by the counsel for the appellant is signed by me and was got prepared on the basis of the record (the death certificate). According to the certificate the date of death of the deceased is 3.6.1956 and the entry regarding the death was made in the register on 10.6.1956 (Note. The certificate produced by the counsel for the appellant is permitted to be placed on the record and is marked as Ex. R4/A. The witness has identified his signatures on this).

XXN By Shri K. B. Bhandari, Sr. Advocate. The register is maintained by the police officials and they record the entries. I do not know who records the entries in the police station. The register remains in the custody of the District Health Officer. I do not recognise the signatures on Annexure P4. It appears from the record that some copy was issued on 19th August also but I cannot say whether it was issued in the year 1981 or some other year.

Reexamination Nil.

(Note. After the statement of the witness was recorded, with the consent learned counsel for the parties, the death register has been returned)."

From the perusal of the above statement of Dr. Gurtej Singh, there remains no manner of doubt in the mind of this Court that Shri Dayal died on 3rd June, 1956, as contended by the private respondents and not on 23rd June, 1956, as averred by the petitioners in their writ petition. In the light of this, it has to be held that the document (Annexure P4) produced by the petitioners was a forged document in order to mislead this Court. The death certificate has been tampered with so as to show the death of Shri Dayal as 23rd June, 1956 instead of 3rd June, 1956 and that the date of the preparation of the death certificate has been shown as 30th June, 1956 instead of 10th June, 1956. This crude attempt on the part of the petitioners has to be discouraged and deprecated with all force at the command of this Court. Even viewed with the naked eye the document (Annexure R4) it is clear that Shri Dayal died on 3rd June, 1956 and his date of death was registered on 10.6.1956. The original of Annexure P4 has also been taken note of by this Court, which clearly suggests that the digit ''2'' has been put in front of the digit ''3'' so as to read ''23'' instead of ''3'' and the digit ''1'' has been tampered with so as to read it as digit ''3'' in order to show that the date of registration of the date of death in the record was 30th June, 1956 instead of 10th June, 1956. The wrong averments with regard to the date of death led to the passing of the judgment by the learned single Judge, which was later on set aside by the L.P.A. Bench and the case was remanded.

Once it is established that the rights of the petitioners are to be adjudicated on the correct premises that Shri Dayal died on 3rd June, 1956, in that eventuality the petitioners would not get anything on the date of death of their father. The entire property would go to Smt. Parmeshwari Devi (respondent No. 5) and she would be considered as the fullfledged owner with the passing of the Hindu Succession Act by virtue of the provisions of Section 14 of that Act.

In the light of the above background, now the orders (Annexures P1 and P2) will be examined. Smt. Parmeshwari Devi herself filed a declaration as required under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1973. At no point of time Smt. Parmeshwari Devi even alleged that her husband died on 3rd June, 1956 and that the land of Shri Dayal had been inherited by her and by her two daughters. The declaration filed by Smt. Parmeshwari Devi was verified by the revenue staff as well as surplus area staff and it was found that on the appointed date, i.e. 24.1.1971 the landowner owned 1172 Kanals and 4 Marlas of land and out of this area Smt. Parmeshwari Devi transferred 411 Kanals (ordinary) land vide mutations No. 3118, 3294 and 3276. These transfers were not proved to be bona fide and they were ignored. It was rightly held vide Annexure P1 that Smt. Parmeshwari Devi was entitled to retain 432 Kanals ''C'' Category land and in this manner the land measuring 740 Kanals 4 Marlas of ''C'' Category was declared surplus. The copy of this order was sent to the landowner. The basis of the present petitioners is that they even procured decrees on 14.4.1972 and 14.12.1973 (Annexures P5 and P7, respectively) and on the basis of these decrees they are entitled to the land. It may be stated that these decrees have to be ignored because these have been obtained collusively. Smt. Bhagwanti filed the suit on 11.4.1972 and obtained the decree on 14.4.1972. Smt. Savitri filed the suit on 12.12.1973 and obtained the decree on 14.12.1973. These decrees have been obtained after the appointed date and before the commencement of the Haryana Ceiling Act, 1972 and were supposed to be ignored under Section 12(4) of the said Act as those were transfers not by sale. Smt. Parmeshwari Devi filed an appeal before the Collector, which was dismissed vide order dated 26.10.1981 (P2). In the appeal Smt. Parmeshwari Devi never took the objection that her husband died after the passing of the Hindu Succession Act. Still her counsel argued this appeal on those lines. This point was also discussed by the Collector in the impugned order (Annexure P2) dated 26.10.1981 and it will be useful for me to incorporate the reasons given by the Collector while rejecting the plea of Smt. Parmeshwari Devi. Para No. 3 of the said order is reproduced as follows :

"So far as the first objection raised by the appellant is concerned, the mutation on the death of husband of the appellant was entered on 20.8.56 and sanctioned in favour of the appellant on 20.10.56. If the appellant felt that this inheritance mutation had not been attested according to law and her daughters were also entitled to the land left by her husband, then she should have taken action in this behalf at that time but she did not take any such proceedings for 15 years and transferred the land in favour of her daughters vide Civil Court orders dated 5.8.81 to the effect that her daughters were entitled to share the inheritance of their father, obtained about three years after the decision on the declaration. This step apparently was taken with a view to save land from the surplus pool. Hence this argument cannot be accepted."

The above would show that Smt. Parmeshwari Devi had no valid stand to argue that her husband died after the passing of the Hindu Succession Act. Her conduct was such from which her falsity became apparent.

A reference to the document (Annexure R1), which is the order of the Commissioner dated 30.7.1982, would show that Smt. Parmeshwari Devi (widow), Smt. Savitri (daughter) and Smt. Bhagwanti (daughter) filed a revision against the order dated 26.10.1981 and the learned Commissioner, Hisar Division, dismissed their revision, holding that there was no legal force in the revision petition filed by them. Smt. Savitri and Smt. Bhagwanti were very much parties to this revision and it was incumbent on their part to disclose in the present writ petition that they filed the revision against the order (Annexure P2) of the Collector and by not doing so, they have made themselves disqualified for invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The things do not rest here. Smt. Parmeshwari (widow) filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, and she impleaded Smt. Savitri and Smt. Bhagwanti as corespondents. These ladies were duly represented by their lawyer Shri J. M. Sethi before the Financial Commissioner, suggesting that they were well aware about the orders of the Commissioner. The learned Financial Commissioner vide detailed and wellreasoned order dated 17.12.1984 (Annexure R2) came to the conclusion that in the declaration form filed by Smt. Parmeshwari Devi she had shown herself as sole member of her family and owner of 1172 Kanals 4 Marlas of ''C'' Category land and she was only entitled for a primary unit. The learned Financial Commissioner further held that Smt. Parmeshwari Devi transferred 411 Kanals of land after the appointed date and her transfer was hit by Section 12(4) of the Haryana Ceiling Act, 1972 and the revenue authorities had rightly ignored these transfers. Even this order dated 17.12.1984 (Annexure P2) has been concealed by the present petitioners and on this score also the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Learned counsel Shri L. N. Verma, appearing on behalf of the private respondents has, however, drawn my attention to some of the case law and his reliance was on Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab through the Secretary, P.W.D. (P.H.), Punjab, Chandigarh and another, 1983 PLR 666; and Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and another v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 1983 S.C. 603; and submitted that when the petitioner had not availed the alternative remedy, which was efficacious, such omission ordinarily would be a bar to the filing of the writ petition. There is force in the argument of Mr. Verma because the order (Annexure P1) was appealable before the Collector under Section 18 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, but the present petitioners did not file any appeal against that order. Only Smt. Parmeshwari Devi filed an appeal which was dismissed. The petitioners could avail the remedy which was alternative and efficacious too and by not doing so, this Court would not interfere in the impugned orders (Annexures P1 and P2), which otherwise are perfectly valid and in accordance with the provisions of law. Moreover, this Court is not inclined to come to the rescue of those litigants who have the tendency to forge the record, which was to be produced before the High Court, which has the least opportunity to record the evidence as while disposing the writs, we accept the averments and the annexures.

Mr. Verma then submitted that the orders (Annexures P1 and P2) had merged with the orders (Annexures R1 and R2). Annexure R1 was also challenged by the present petitioners. In Annexure R2 Smt. Savitri and Smt. Bhagwanti were also made parties. Since there is no challenge by the present petitioners to the orders Annexures R1 and R2, therefore, without getting them set aside, the present petitioners cannot file the present writ petition challenging the orders (P1 and P2). There is weight in the submission of Mr. Verma because the doctrine of merger has always been recognised as a good principle of law. The decision of the inferior Court merges with the decision of a superior Court. In this regard I derive support from the Division Bench decision of this Court reported as Amarjit Singh and others v. Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab, and others, 1978 PLJ 228.

It was also submitted by Mr. Verma that the earlier decision of the learned Single Judge had proceeded on wrong premises because at that time the Hon''ble single Judge was misled with regard to the actual date of death of Shri Dayal and secondly a wrong representation was made by the petitioners that the land in question was in their possession and that the allotment was a mere paper transaction. However, this was found to be false. Even as per the report of the Senior Sub Judge, the possession had been delivered to the private respondents; so much so the contempt petition of the present petitioners was also dismissed. There is force in the submission of Mr. Verma. It appears that at every point of time the petitioners made false representations and they had even gone to the extent of forging the record to get a favourable finding. The position otherwise is that the decrees in their favour were obtained after the appointed date, i.e., 24.1.1971, and were rightly ignored in view of the provisions of Section 12(4) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. The private respondents had already paid all the instalments of compensation and they had become the original owners of the allotted land by virtue of the provisions of Section 15(5) of the 1972 Act.

Seeing from all angles of vision, this Court has come to the considered opinion that this writ petition is totally devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the writ petition is hereby dismissed with costs, which are assessed at Rs. 5,000/. The costs have been imposed upon the petitioners in view of the order dated 17.11.1995 passed by the Division Bench, which declared that the costs of the L.P.A. to follow the result of the writ petition.