HARNAM KAUR Vs. HUKMI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that the surplus area of Shri Ganga Ram, a big landowner of village of village Panjuwana and Dhaban, Tehsil and District Sirsa was determined by the Collector vide his order dated 16.11.1961 whereby he was allowed permissible area upto 100 ordinary acres. On his death, his two sons moved a case before Collector, Surplus Area for re-determination of the surplus area case of their father by considering to give them benefit of inheritance under Section 10A(b) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The Collector, Surplus Area vide his order dated 2.11.1967 allowed 60 ordinary acres for each one of them and declared the remaining 79 ordinary acres 1 kanal 19 marlas as surplus in their hands. Raj Kumari, daughter, Lazmi Devi widow and Smt. Kinari Bai mother of Shri Ganga Ram filed a revision petition before Commissioner, Ambala Division on the ground that in view of the judgment given by Civil Court, Sirsa on 13.2.1968, they should be given share in the land to be inherited from Shri Ganga Ram and that the order of Collector, Surplus Area dated 2.11.1967 be set aside. The Commissioner, Ambala Division had recommended that the decree from the Civil Court has been obtained in a collusive manner and that the land left by Shri Ganga Ram should, in fact, pass on to all the five heirs referred to above in equal shares according to Hindu Succession Act. Agreeing with his recommendation, Financial Commissioner, Haryana set aside the Collector (SA) order dated 2.11.1967 and allowed benefit to these heirs according to Hindu Succession Act. The area declared surplus on 16.11.1961 if already utilized will not be touched and none of the heirs will have any claim over that area.

(2.) IN pursuance of this order, the surplus area was redetermined in the hands of heirs and consequently having no surplus area, the case was filed. The surplus area case of Shri Amar Singh was determined under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 and the area of village Dhaban which came to the share of Raj Kumari, one of the legal heirs of original landowner, Ganga Ram was declared surplus by the Special Collector, Haryana vide his order dated 28.11.1979. This area has now been allotted to the eligible tenants under the Haryana Utilization of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme, 1976 by the Allotment Authority, Sirsa vide his order dated 10.9.1980. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector Sirsa who after hearing both the parties rejected the appeal vide his order dated 15.6.1993 on the ground of limitation without going into the merits of the case. The petitioner then filed revision petition before this court.

(3.) THE counsel for the respondent raised perliminary objections that the petitioner should have gone in appeal under section 18(4) of the Punjab Tenancy Act against the above said Collector's order before coming in revision before this Court. In support of his contention he referred to rulings contained in 1981-PLJ-43 and 1980-PLJ-451. It was further objected that the land was allotted in 1980 and Maghar Singh the husband of the petitioner was also allotted land measuring 13 kanals 17 marlas. The petitioner, if was aggrieved, should have challenged this order at that time within 15 days. This allotment order has been challenged after 12 years and that too without filing any condonation application. The petitioner has already gone in civil litigation and his suit was dismissed and, therefore, his present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed merely on these preliminary objections. The counsel for respondent further argued that the area in question is declared surplus under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act and there is no provision of Tenants' Permissible Area in it. So the plea of the petitioner that the area in question is his permissible area is not maintainable. If, at all, he was aggrieved with the declaration of the surplus area, he should have challenged that order pertaining to the determination of the surplus area. Instead he has challenged the allotment order which is perfectly valid.