K. Kannan, J. - (1.) The order impugned is in relation to the proceedings of the officers under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act of 1972 (for short, 'the 1972 Act'), declaring the petitioner's holding as falling in surplus of the ceiling area. The petitioner is reported to have owned a 398 kanal-13 marlas of land, out of which, 24 kanal area was thur and 1 kanal- 4 marlas area was gair mumkin. On the basis of jamabandi for the year 1970-71, the petitioner had got the declaration form submitted on 16.08.1976 as required under the Act. According to him, even before 1970-71, he had transferred a portion of the property in the name of his wife and two sons, namely, Shamsher Singh and Nafe Singh through a family settlement and they had also been shown the owners of their respective properties. The petitioner would admit that there was a mistake in the declaration form in referring to only two children but when actually he had four children as on 24.01.1971, the other two being daughters, namely, Virmati and Mewa.
(2.) The Prescribed Authority under the 1972 Act, who was the SDO(C), Kaithal, passed an order on 11.08.1981 treating the petitioner as the only primary unit of the family and wrongly assumed that he had only two minor sons on 24.01.1971. On such a basis, the area of 181 kanal-7 marlas out of 398 kanal-13 marlas, had been declared as surplus. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Collector and produced proof of the fact that he had two other daughters and given a statement of witness Moti Ram, who was the Lambardar, and documents to establish the respective dates of birth of all his children, except the youngest daughter, Mewa, whose birth had not been registered. However, he gave evidence through witness that the child had been born on 24.01.1971 and the petitioner had given personal affidavit with reference to the said fact. The Collector dismissed the appeal finding that the petitioner had given false statement that his elder daughter Virmati was unmarried whereas Moti Ram, Lambardar, who was cited as a witness, stated that Virmati was married. The Collector found fault with the petitioner in not giving the true statement in the declaration form by declaring the birth of all children. The petitioner's objection relating to the calculation of the surplus area had also not been considered and according to the petitioner, a wrong inference had been made in assuming that there was a tube-well working in the land. The petitioner preferred a further revision to the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner and they also failed.
(3.) When the Prescribed Authority declared 184 kanal-7 marlas as the property in surplus and directed him to select the killa numbers for the surplus pool, the petitioner did not give the option but challenged the very order of the Collector in appeal and there had been a stay of the proceedings as well. However, the Prescribed Authority went ahead further, selected the surplus area himself during the pendency of the proceedings at the appellate forum and passed the order on 18.02.1982 setting out the property that had been treated as surplus. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the selection made as surplus by the competent authority before the Financial Commissioner and seeking for stay of further proceedings. The Commissioner has stayed the further proceedings, but he had failed to make any mention about the said fact at the time when he was disposing of the revision filed.;