- (1.) The issue involved in this petition is the manner of determination of surplus area under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act). The order under challenge is the order passed in revision before the Financial Commissioner, rejecting the revision and directing the matter to be remitted to the prescribed Authority to implement the earlier direction given by the Financial Commissioner and affording to the legal heirs of the landowner, Gopal Dass (since deceased) the opportunity of hearing. The principal contention was that in the manner of reckoning the standard acres, it was essential to determine the quality of land for which evidence was deemed necessary. The petitioners had certain fundamental objections relating to the initiation of proceedings and even though the final determination had not occurred through the impugned order, they still challenged the order through this writ petition, for the observation made by various authorities in the hierarchy before it culminated the order of the Financial Commissioner.
(2.) The proceedings were initiated under the Act and a determination of 62 Kanals and 19 Marias of 'C' Category land as surplus was made by the prescribed Authority through his order dated 15.09.1980. Appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Collector on 16.6.1981 and a revision to the Commissioner also met with the same fate by the decision dated 26.6.1982. A further revision petition under Section 18(6) of the Act was partly allowed by the Financial Commissioner and the matter was remitted to the prescribed Authority through his order dated 14.10.1985 for re-examining the quality of the holding and for reassessing the value thereof.
(3.) After the order was passed remitting the matter to the prescribed Authority, the landowner Gopal Dass died when the case was still under consideration before the prescribed Authority. But the proceedings continued without impleading the legal representative when he reiterated the same order passed in the year 1980 and without reassessing the value of the holding, he also directed that the proceedings shall be initiated for recovery of the benefit derived by the landowner during the earlier 9 years. This order was challenged in appeal to the Collector by the legal representatives when the present petitioners were made themselves parties to the proceedings, the Collector remanded the matter back to the prescribed Authority for the purpose of reassessing the value of the holding. This order itself was challenged by the petitioners before the Commissioner and the Commissioner also reiterated that the petitioners could reappear before the prescribed Authority for ''satisfying the impugned order.'' The Financial Commissioner also maintained the remand order of the Collector made on 07.02.1989 in a petition filed under Section 18(6) and that is the order in challenge before this Court.;