KARTA Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Kanti was a big landowner on April 15, 1953. In 1957, she gifted her entire land to her daughter Smt. Bholi. Ved Parkash and Smt. Ginna Devi respondent Nos. 2 and 3) purchased some land, including the land in dispute measuring 106 kanals detailed in the writ petition and situate in village Khanpur, Tehsil Kaithal, District Kurukshetra from Smt. Bholi on April 26, 1961. The land in dispute (106 kanals) is in possession of the petitioner as a tenant. The petitioner claims that he was a tenant of the land in dispute on April 15, 1953, when the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter the Act) came into force whereas the case of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is that he is in occupation of the land in dispute as a tenant since 1957. The Financial Commissioner in the impugned order dated October 19, 1979 (P-1) has observed that it would be immaterial for the purpose of the issue under consideration whether the petitioner is a tenant of the land in dispute since 1953 or 1957.

(2.) The Collector vide order dated December 28, 1960, decided the surplus area case of Smt. Kanti inasmuch as she happened to be the owner of the land on April 15, 1953, and an area measuring 8.32 standard acres was declared surplus. On December 24, 1961, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who had purchased some of the land from Smt. Bholi daughter of Smt. Kanti filed an application praying therein that the order of the Collector surplus area dated December 28, 1960 be reviewed for giving him the benefit of increase on account of consolidation of holdings. The Commissioner vide order dated September 9, 1962 permitted the review and the Collector surplus area by his order dated October 26, 1962, decided the surplus area case of Smt. Kanti and found only 7 units (comprised in khasra No. 110/18 min) as surplus area. On August 5, 1970 the Collector Surplus Area Kaithal requested the Commissioner for permission to review the order of his predecessor dated October 26, 1962, on the ground that the land of Smt. Kanti which was under mortgage had been redeemed and the same should also have been declared surplus. The Commissioner allowed the review by his order dated March 30, 1971. Thereafter, the Collector surplus area, Kaithal by his order dated November 9, 1971, declared 6 standard acres 2-1/2 units of land of Smt. Kanti as surplus land Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed an appeal against the order of the Collector dated November 9, 1971, which was allowed. The petitioner filed a revision against the order of the Commissioner which was dismissed by Financial Commissioner vide order dated August 8, 1972 (R-3).

(3.) On December 8, 1969, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 moved an application on form K-1 for the ejectment of the petitioner (tenant) under Section 14-A(i) read with Section 9(1)(i) of the Act on the ground that they were small landowners. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Kaithal, vide order dated October 27, 1977, accepted the application and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner and further held that the later was not entitled to compensation. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by Additional Collector, Kurukshetra, vide order dated February 21, 1978. His revision was dismissed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division on September 28, 1978. The petitioner then filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner which was dismissed by the later vide order dated October 19, 1979 (P-1). The petitioner has assailed the order P-1 in the present writ.