Som Nath vs State of Haryana and others

G.R. Majithia, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has impugned the order of Financial Commissioner Revenue, Haryana, dated 24th of June, 1980, affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala imposing a penalty of 20 standard acres under Section 5C of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953.

Brief facts : Sh. Hotu Ram, father of the petitioner, was allotted land measuring 22 standard acres 5 units in village Kahari, Tehsil Jhajjar, in lieu of the land abandoned by him in Pakistan. He sold land measuring 7.5 standard acres out of this land in the year 1957. He inherited land measuring 24 standard acres 15 units in village Kahanor, district Rohtak from Smt. Karmobai in the year 1961. He transferred land measuring 11 standard acres situate in village Kahari, Tehsil Jhajjar, in favour of old tenants on 29.10.1968. The proceedings under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (in short ''the Act'') for determining the surplus area were initiated. The Collector Agrarian, vide his order dated 9th of January, 1970 held that the petitioner did not hold land in excess of the permissible limit, and the surplus area proceedings were filed. The tenant aggrieved against the ejectment order, challenged the same in appeal before the Commissioner Ambala Division, Ambala. The Commissioner, Ambala Division Ambala, in the course of hearing of that appeal initiated suo motu proceedings for recalling and revising the order of the Collector, Agrarian dated 9th of January, 1970. He recommended to the Financial Commissioner to set aside the order of Collector Agrarian dated 9.1.1970 and to determine whether any penalty could be imposed against Hotu Ram. The said recommendation was accepted by the Financial Commissioner and the case was remanded to the Collector Agrarian. The Collector Agrarian imposed a penalty of 20 standard acres and declared that the said area was a surplus area, vide order dated 7th of February, 1977.

During the pendency of proceedings before the Collector Agrarian, Sh. Hotu Ram died and the heirs of Sh. Hotu Ram moved an application that since inheritance had devolved upon them, penalty should not be imposed as they did not hold or own area more than the permissible limit. This plea of the heirs of Hotu Ram was declined. The order passed by the Collector Agrarian on 7th of February, 1977 was affirmed by the Commissioner in appeal, and by the Financial Commissioner in revision.

It is unfortunate that the Revenue Officer did not appreciate the correct legal proportion. Even if Hotu Ram had made an error in not filing the declaration as enjoined by Section 5A of the Act within the period prescribed, penalty could be imposed under Section 5C of the Act, and the area could be deemed to be a surplus area, but before it could be utilised, the landowner had died and the heirs of the landowner were entitled to the benefit of Section 10B of the Act and this fact needed to be gone into. Section 10B of the Act envisages that if the surplus area is not utilised and in the meantime, the landowner has died, the order declaring the land as surplus could not be implemented because the surplus land is to be determined qua the heirs of the deceasedlandowner. It is not disputed that the land allegedly declared surplus has not been utilised. The heirs of the landowner could not be deprived of the benefit of Section 10B of the Act after the enforcement of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (in short of ''Ceiling Act'') in view of Section 8 of this Act. The land which has been declared surplus and which has not been utilised, the surplus area is to be determined qua the heirs of the deceased landowner. It is not the case of the State that the land vests with the State or that it has been utilised for a certain period. Apart from this, it is unfortunate that the case was reopened without any justifiable ground. The Collector Agrarian vide his order dated 9th of January, 1970, had founded that the landowner was a small landowner. This order was not assailed by the State. The order has attained finality. There was no basis for initiation of suo motu proceedings, for setting aside the order. The action of the Commissioner and thereafter of the Financial Commissioner cannot be sustained. The order passed by the Collector Agrarian on remand by the Financial Commissioner cannot be sustained on this ground also.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds. The order of the Financial Commissioner dated 24th of June, 1990, order of the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, dated 7th of October, 1977 and of the Collector Agrarian dated 7th of February, 1977, are set aside. No order as to costs.