- (1.) Chanan Mal and three others have filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated May 27, 1980 (Annexure P-20) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, upholding the dated March 21, 1967 (Annexure P-12) passed by his predecessor Shri B.S. Grewal, Financial Commissioner, Haryana, who upheld the order dated March 10, 1964 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Collector (Surplus), Sirsa, declaring some land, in the hands of Smt. Rukmani Devi, as surplus.
(2.) This case has a chequered history . The pertinent facts may briefly be noticed in order to determine the prestinely legal controversy raised in this writ petition. Smt. Rukmani Devi was a displaced person from Pakistan. In 1955, she was allotted 6.28 standard acres of land. She was thus a small landowner, as contemplated by the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (for short 'the Act'). On the death of her husband, Shri Suraj Bhan in 1955 she inherited 38.70 standard acres of land equivalent to 124.56 ordinary acres of land in village Kheraika Tehsil and District Sirsa. On May 16, 1958, Smt. Rukmani Devi sold 28 Bighas 2 Biswas of her land situated in village Kheraika to her daughter, Smt. Saraswati Devi, for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/-. Mutation relating to this sale transaction was sanctioned in the name of Smt. Saraswati Devi on January 17, 1960. On June 18, 1958, Smt. Rukmani Devi selected her permissible area and submitted Form 'E' prescribed by the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules (for short 'the Rules'). Smt. Saraswati Devi sold the above mentioned land purchased by her from her mother measuring 28 Bighas 2 Biswas to the petitioners for Rs. 15,000/- by means of a registered sale-deed. Mutation No. 597, relating to this sale was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners on March 5, 1961. This position was reflected in the Jamabandi for the year 1960-61, wherein the petitioners were shown as owners of 28 Bighas 2 Biswas of land purchased from Smt. Saraswati Devi. In 1961 the Collector started proceedings for determination of surplus area of Smt. Rukmani Devi. Her general attorney, Shri Ram Bhagat, appeared before the Circle Revenue Officer and made a statement that Smt. Rukmani Devi had sold 28 Bighas 2 Biswas of land to her daughter Smt. Saraswati Devi. The Circle Revenue Officer in his report dated October 13, 1961, made to the Collector mentioned about this transfer of 28 Bighas 2 Biswas of land by Smt. Rukmani Devi to her daughter. The Collector also recorded the statement of Ram Bhagat. He reiterated his stand about the sale of 28 Bighas 2 Biswas of land by Smt. Rukmani Devi to her daughter Smt. Saraswati Devi. The factum of transfer of this land by Smt. Rukmani Devi to Smt. Saraswati Devi and the further transfer by Saraswati Devi to the petitioners is mentioned in Form 'D' prepared by the village Patwari, which was attested by the Field Kanungo and the Circle Revenue Officer. Even though the names of the petitioners were mentioned in the revenue record and Form 'D' prepared in these very proceedings, the Collector did not issue any notices to either of them. The Collector vide his order dated November 30, 1961, held that Smt. Rukmani Devi held 44.98 standard acres, whereas she was entitled to own 50 standard acres of land as a displaced person. There was no surplus area with her. This order passed by the Collector was on a misconception of law. The Collector after seeking permission of the Commissioner to review the order dated November 30, 1961, took up the case for determination of the surplus area of Smt. Rukmani Devi afresh. However, he did not issue any notice to the petitioners before passing the order dated March 10, 1964, whereby he gave Smt. Rukmani Devi 30 standard acres equal to 96 ordinary acres as permissible area and declared 13.58 standard acres of land equal to 46.29 ordinary acres as surplus with Smt. Rukmani Devi (a copy of this order is appended as Annexure P-10, to the writ petition). Whole of the land purchased by the petitioners was included in the surplus area. Since the petitioners were not associated with the proceedings for determination of surplus area of Smt. Rukmani Devi, they did not come to know of this order. The petitioners allege that the landlady gave a fresh list of permissible area and the surplus area quite different from the land selected by her in Form 'E' submitted on June 18, 1958. By this order of the Collector the entire land purchased by the petitioners was included in the surplus area of Smt. Rukmani Devi. Ladhu Ram was a tenant of Smt. Rukmani Devi. After the passing of the order dated November 30, 1961, according to which Smt. Rukmani Devi was declared as a small landowner, she filed an ejectment application against Ladhu Ram. The Collector accepted her prayer and Ladhu Ram was ordered to be ejected in 1962. On an appeal filed by Ladhu Ram, the Commissioner held that the order of the Collector was erroneous as Ladhu Ram was an old tenant and no notice had been issued to him while determining the surplus case of Smt. Rukmani Devi and that she was entitled to only 60 ordinary acres and not 96 ordinary acres as ordered by the Collector. Aggrieved by this order, Smt. Rukmani Devi went up in revision. Shri B.S. Grewal, Financial Commissioner, Haryana, accepted this revision on March 21, 1967, on the ground that Ladhu Ram had already been ejected in 1962 and the view of the Commissioner that Smt. Rukmani Devi was entitled to only 60 ordinary acres was incorrect (a copy of this order is annexed as P-12 to the writ petition). The petitioners were not impleaded as parties to this revision petition nor were they heard before passing orders (Annexure P-12). Des Raj and Amar Chand were allotted a part of the land purchased by the petitioners and declared surplus by the Collector vide Annexure P-10. They were given possession of the part of that land purchased by the petitioners from Smt. Saraswati Devi. This was a shock to the petitioners because they had not known about the proceedings for the determination of surplus area of Smt. Rukmani Devi. The petitioners felt aggrieved of this illegal utilization of their land by the authorities and filed an appeal against the order of the Collector dated March 10, 1964 (Annexure P-10). This appeal was accepted by the Commissioner on December 20, 1972, mainly on the ground that the petitioners as transferees were entitled to be heard before the surplus area of Smt. Rukmani Devi was decided. No notice had been issued to the petitioners by the Collector and the order was not conveyed to them. The Commissioner set aside the order (Annexure P-10) and remanded the case to the Collector for fresh determination in accordance with law after hearing the affected persons including the petitioners. Nobody filed any appeal or revision against this order. Thereafter, petitioner moved an application before the Collector seeking restoration of possession of their land allotted to the respondents 8 and 9. The Collector accepted this application on March 15, 1973, and ordered the restoration of possession of land belonging to the petitioners which had been given to respondents 8 and 9. It was ordered that before respondents 8 and 9 were dispossessed they should be allotted some alternative land so their interests were not affected. Dissatisfied with this order, respondents 8 and 9 filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Commissioner vide orders dated June 15, 1973. A revision petition filed by respondents 8 and 9 was accepted by Shri S.D. Bhambri, Financial Commissioner, Haryana, on July 30, 1974. He observed that the order of Collector dated March 10, 1964, had been affirmed by the Financial Commissioner, vide orders dated March 21, 1967, and the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to set aside the order (Annexure P-10). He also observed that if the petitioners felt aggrieved from the order dated March 21, 1967 (Annexure P-12), they should seek a review of that order from the Financial Commissioner. This order was passed on July 30, 1974. The Financial Commissioner dismissed an application seeking review of the above order on November 22, 1974, on the ground that in view of the provisions of section 33 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, this application was not competent. The petitioners filed a writ petition (C. W.P. 6521 of 1974) challenging this order and the same was decided by R.N. Mittal, J. on October 15, 1976. The order of the Financial Commissioner (Annexure P- 16) holding that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to set aside the order dated March 10, 1964 in view of the decision of the Financial Commissioner dated March 21, 1967, affirming the order of the Collector was upheld. However, the order of the Financial Commissioner (Annexure P-17) rejecting the application for review was set aside. It was held that the proceedings were pending when the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act was enforced and the Financial Commissioner was competent to decide the review application. The order of the Financial Commissioner (Annexure P-17) was set aside and the case was remanded to him for deciding it on merits. The matter was heard by Shri L.C. Gupta, Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Haryana. He rejected the review application vide orders dated May 27, 1980 (Annexure P-20). Apart from holding that the review application was hopelessly barred by time and the petitioners has no locus standi to file the review application they not being a party to the proceedings before Shri Grewal, Shri Gupta has rejected the review application mainly on the grounds that - (i) Smt. Rukmani Devi did not mention in selection Form 'E' submitted by her in 1958 that she sold the land, in dispute, to her daughter Smt. Saraswati Devi. No reference has been made to Smt. Saraswati Devi in the order (Annexure P-10) passed by the Collector determining the surplus area of Smt. Rukmani Devi; (ii) in the revenue record, the petitioners were not mentioned as interested party; and (iii) a transferee of a transferee is not entitled to a hearing before determination of surplus area of the original big landowner.
(3.) None of these grounds is tenable in law.;