G.MADHAVAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition filed against the order of the District Collector, Mohindergarh dated 30.7.1996 whereby the appeal of the revisionist was dismissed and order of the Prescribed Authority, Mohindergarh dated 21.9.1995 was upheld vide which 95 Kanals and 10 marlas of land belonging of the revisionist was declared as surplus. This order of the Prescribed Authority Mohindergarh was a sequel to the orders of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana dated 13.8.1990 when exercising his suo motu powers he reopened this matter after a lapse of 13 years and set aside the earlier orders of Prescribed Authority Mohindergarh dated 28.2.1977 whereby no surplus area was detected. The Commissioner, Gurgaon Division has referred this revision petition to the Financial Commissioner, Haryana holding the view that the lower Courts including that of the Commissioner are bound by the Financial Commissioner's orders and only the latter can review his own orders.
(2.) ON behalf of the revisionist written arguments were advanced apart from arguments made by the counsel before this Court. The following points were urged by the revisionist : (1) That he owned less than permissible area on 24.1.1971 (the appointed day in the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972) and, therefore, did not submit any declaration form under Section 9 of the Act. (2) The Prescribed Authority Mohindergarh after getting a report from the Patwari Agrarian as well as Naib Tehsildar vide his order dated 28.2.1977 held that there was no excess area with the petitioner. These orders were not challenged by the State either before the Collector or the Commissioner and thus became final between the parties. (3) The matter was reopened after 13 years on a petition filed by the respondent State before the Financial Commissioner in 1988 pleading that the petitioner was entitled to only one unit and not to two units and thus an area of 95 kanals and 10 Marlas was in excess which can be declared as surplus. This request was decided and allowed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 13.8.1990 and it was held that the petitioner was entitled to only one primary unit and the case was remanded back to the prescribed Authority with the direction to declare an area of 95 Kanals and 10 Marlas as surplus. The petitioner was further allowed opportunity to make his selection and demarcate this area of 95 Kanals and 10 Marlas to be designated as surplus. (4) No reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to select his permissible area and the Prescribed Authority went ahead and on the basis of the report of the Patwari concerned selected the surplus area at his own level. On an appeal filed against this order before the Collector, the Collector, Mohindergarh vide order dated 5.1.1995 remanded the case back to the Prescribed Authority for giving proper opportunity to the petitioner and to allow the petitioner to exercise his choice of the area to be taken in the surplus pool and then declare the surplus area accordingly. The petitioner submitted the details of an area of 95 Kanals and 10 Marlas on 27.3.1995 which was not accepted by the Prescribed Authority on the ground that the area was not Paak and Saaf (without any encumbrance). The Prescribed Authority then went ahead and declared the same field numbers which had been declared surplus vide its earlier order dated 12.1.1994 which had been set aside in appeal by the Collector. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the orders of the Prescribed Authority dated 21.9.1995 was dismissed by the Collector vide orders dated 30.7.1996 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to submit the details of Paak and Saaf area of 95 Kanals and 10 Marlas. (5) The revision petition filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Gurgaon was considered by the Commissioner who has held that the area already sold away by the petitioner before the commencement of the Act had been wrongly computed in his total holdings and since he was no longer the owner of the area on the appointed day there was no excess area to be declared as surplus. The petitioner has argued that the facts clearly show that three registered sale deeds dated 3.8.1964, 5.3.1970 and 19.6.1971 for areas of 102 Kanals and 1 Marla, 26 Kanals and 18 Marlas and 89 Kanals and 12 Marlas respectively are matters of record and as per various judicial pronouncements even sales made between 24.1.1971 and before 23.12.1972 should be exempted. Ever if the third sale is not exempted the total area with the petitioner would still be less than the permissible limit and thus there was no case of declaring any area as surplus as held by the Commissioner. The mutations were sanctioned late because of the laxity on the part of the revenue authorities with the result that the revenue records still showed him to be the owner on the appointed date. However, the petitioner has accepted the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 13.8.1990 declaring 95 Kanas and 10 Marlas as surplus area and was entitled to select this area as per his choice. It has been argued that as per various judicial pronouncements he has the unfettered right to select his permissible area and cannot be compelled to include in his permissible area the land already sold away before the commencement of the Act. The decisions of the Hon'ble High Court as reported in 1976 PLJ page 538 and 1977 PLJ page 118 were quoted in this regard. It has further been argued that the State had taken a stand before the Collector that the area of 95 Kanals and 10 Marlas offered to the surplus pool by the petitioner has already been sold away and, therefore, cannot be accepted whereas it is contended before this Court that the sale of land made by registered sale deed should be ignored as doubtful sales because the mutations were not sanctioned till 1975. If the said sales should be ignored with the area computed to be under his ownership and thus the petitioner was entitled to make selection and give in the surplus pool area out of this land. Either way he cannot be denied the statutory right to select the permissible area of his choice. It was further argued that the lower authorities were bound to decide the case as per order of remand and cannot reject the list submitted by him on 27.3.1995 on the ground that the area was not Paak and Saaf. The decisions of the Hon'ble High Court as reported in 1997(2) PLJ page 323 and 1993 PLJ page 124 were quoted in this regard. The Commissioner need not have made this reference and should have directed the Prescribed Authority to accept the choice of numbers given by the petitioner. Even if the Commissioner had not made this reference and dismissed the revision petition the petitioner still could have approached this Court under Section 18(6) of the Act. Thus it would be appropriate to treat this reference as a revision petition. There is no need for review of the orders dated 13.8.1990 and the lower authorities need to be directed to respect the choice of numbers made by the petitioner in terms of the orders of the Financial Commissioner dated 13.8.1990.
(3.) WRITTEN arguments were also produced on behalf of the State. The following points argued on behalf of the State : (1) That there is no provision of review under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972. The earlier provision of review under Section 18(3) was specifically deleted in the year 1976. As held by the Supreme Court in AIR 1970 S. C. page 1273 the power of review is not an inherent power but it must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. A Full Bench of Financial Commissioners in a decision reported in 1990 PLJ page 189 held that there is no provision of review under Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Subsequently also Financial Commissioners have held in various cases that there is no review under this Act. (2) The sale deeds of the year 1964 and 1970 appear to be fictitious since they were not acted upon and gave the landowner excuse to cheat others. As per orders dated 27.3.1997 of the Additional District Judge, Narnaul possession of the land measuring 95 Kanals and 10 Marlas was taken on 14.11.1995. It was prayed that the reference made by the Commissioner should be rejected and in case his prayer is to be accepted orders may be passed to direct enquiry into the matter to find out whether the sales made by the landowner were genuine or not. ;